Bahrain rejects proposal to give judiciary power over deportation, travel bans

Dubai: Bahrain has rejected a parliamentary proposal that sought to give the judiciary authority over deportation and travel ban decisions, warning that such a move could directly threaten national security.

The proposed amendment to Article 40 of the Civil and Commercial Execution Law would have empowered a panel of three judges to rule on cases involving expatriate residents facing both deportation and a travel ban. It would have also allowed appeals to be filed within seven days before the High Civil Court.
However, the government strongly opposed the measure, asserting that deportation is a sovereign right and cannot be subject to judicial discretion. “Deportation is a sovereign act, not something to be weighed against private debt claims,” the government said in a memorandum.

Authorities argued that deportation is a critical tool for maintaining public order, safety, and moral standards. Subjecting such decisions to judicial review, they warned, would obstruct the state’s ability to act swiftly and decisively in the face of potential internal threats.
Under current law, courts may issue travel bans to prevent foreign debtors from fleeing the country. However, these orders do not override or delay deportation or administrative removal decisions.

The government cautioned that the proposed amendment would invert this principle, effectively giving civil claims precedence over national security.

Internal threats
“This interferes with and weakens the state’s capacity to respond quickly to internal threats,” the government noted. It also raised the concern that expatriates could potentially exploit the system by using debt claims to trigger a travel ban and thereby delay deportation.

“There is nothing in the proposed text to prevent misuse,” the memorandum added.
The government called on Parliament to withdraw the draft law, maintaining that the existing legal framework already strikes a proper balance between individual rights and public interest. It warned that the amendment would introduce legal uncertainty and compromise the enforcement of final court rulings.

The memorandum also clarified that deportation may be imposed as a supplementary sentence in criminal cases. Once such a sentence becomes final, it must be carried out without delay. “A final criminal ruling cannot be re-examined. No other body may delay or undo its effect,” the government asserted.