What impact will the landmark citizenship ruling have on UK’s approach to fighting terror?

Analysis: The immigration body's decision paves the way for others made stateless to appeal and could impact Britain's counterterrorism efforts, says Kim Sengupta

British citizenship has been stripped from more than 150 suspected militants (Getty Images)

The decision by a judge that two men of Bangladeshi background cannot be deprived of their British nationality on grounds of national security has implications for the government’s counterterrorism strategy.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) concluded that stripping the men of their citizenship while they were abroad was unlawful because it made them stateless.

In August last year the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that it was lawful for the government to strip British terror suspects of their citizenship when abroad.

Little use had been made of the power, which came into force in the British Nationality Act of 1981, until large numbers of Britons started travelling to the Middle East for jihad.

In 2014, the power was extended from covering just dual nationals to those who “there were reasonable grounds to consider that they could be eligible for another nationality”. The move was criticised by human rights groups on the grounds that it could breach international obligations by leaving people stateless.

Around 35 people had been deprived of UK citizenship at the time of the ECHR ruling. This has since risen to more than 150 suspected militants, as well as those accused of non-political crimes. They have both had their British nationality removed while abroad and been banned from returning.

Ministers have been increasing the “deprivation orders” fearing that the defeat of Isis in Syria and Iraq would lead to an upsurge of fighters returning to this country.

The orders can be issued on the basis of suspicion alone, with no requirement for the recipient to have been charged with or convicted of any offence, provided that the home secretary deems their presence in the UK is “not conducive to the public good” and doing so does not render them stateless.

In the case of the two Bangladeshis, the commission heard that Bangladeshi law required them to formally apply to retain their citizenship on reaching the age of 21 and, because they failed to do so, their right to be nationals of that country had lapsed.

The men, referred to in court as E3 and N3, had travelled outside the UK, to Bangladesh and Turkey respectively, when they were informed of their loss of British nationality, leaving them, their legal team said, stranded in foreign countries without income or support.

Speaking after the ruling, the second man said: “I feel that my country stabbed me in the back by removing my citizenship right after I left the UK last year to return to running my business and carrying out important aid work in Turkey.

“Hopefully now the courts will force the Home Office to stop taking people’s citizenship away without any right – it’s a practice that belongs to medieval times.”

The SIAC ruling means that not only can these two men retain their UK passports, but it also opens the way for others from different backgrounds overseas who have been issued with “deprivation orders” to come forward if they, too, are facing difficulties obtaining alternative citizenship.