Parliament, Senate seek middle ground in citizenship act debate

A little over 13 years ago, Tanzanian national Abdul-Kareem Nchimbi moved to Rwanda in search of business opportunities in the petroleum sector. Although his initial plan was to commute between Rwanda and Tanzania where his wife and two children lived, Nchimbi fell in love with the country and decided to move his family to Rwanda within one year. The rest, as they say, is history. Nchimbi has been meticulously preparing his next step, to apply for Rwandan citizenship. However, following a disagreement between the lower chamber of parliament and the Senate on how long one must stay in Rwanda before they are considered for citizenship is something to go by, Nchimbi and his family may have to wait a little longer. The disagreement Almost six months ago, the lower chamber of parliament passed the law governing Rwandan nationality. The law then went to the Senate where some changes were made on several articles. However, the two chambers did not agree on some of the articles that the Upper Chamber wanted amended. The Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Political Affairs and Gender (the docket under which migration falls) MP Emma Furaha Rubagumya told fellow lawmakers that her team was tasked with reviewing amendments made by the Senate to the draft law. “When a law is adopted by the Plenary of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate makes amendments to it, such amendments are submitted to the Committee for review before it makes a report and presents it to the Plenary Assembly,” she said. However, she explained to the MPs that the committee did not agree with the amendments made to the law by the Senate especially in terms of wording. Matter of contention At the centre of the disagreement are articles 16 and 18, both which touch on the duration a foreigner or immigrant seeking citizenship must have stayed in Rwanda before they can apply for citizenship. While both chambers did not dispute the length of time, they did not agree on the addition or subtraction of the word ‘consistently’ which in this case can affect whether one gets citizenship or not. Articles 13 and 16 in the original draft presented by the government stipulated that anyone pursuing citizenship on grounds of residence in Rwanda or as an immigrant should have legally resided and physically been present on the territory of Rwanda for at least 15 years or 25 years respectively on the date of application. However, members of the lower chamber of parliament amended both articles to indicate that both the foreign resident and the immigrant interested in Rwandan citizenship should have stayed in Rwanda ‘consistently’ for the years stipulated. However, upon receiving the draft legislation, the Senate scrapped the word ‘consistently’, from Article 16, saying that what should matter is that the person seeking citizenship should have lived in Rwanda legally for the prescribe period. Regarding Article 18, members of the Senate said that saying that an applicant should have stayed in Rwanda for 25 years ‘consistently’ is a contradiction of the original idea. Rubagumya explained that the word consistently will cause confusion on how the years are determined and whether that includes or excludes the time spent by the applicant out of the country. The disagreement forced both chambers to set up a joint committee (with five members from each) to discuss and reach a compromise about the articles. Their report will be heard in Parliament this Wednesday June 3. Value of wording In a telephone interview, the Executive Director of the Legal Aid Forum (LAF), Andrews Kananga, whose office provides legal support to refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants said that the wording of a law must be clear so that it does not leave any margins for errors in the future. Commenting on the disagreement, Kananga said that requiring an applicant to have been in the country consistently for a particular period of time is not unique to Rwanda as some countries like the US and Canada have strict guidelines along the same subject. “People move to other countries for different reasons, some genuine, some suspicious. The word ‘consistently’ is very powerful but it is very important for countries for different reasons including giving their people a chance on the labour market,” he said. Commenting on the new developments, Nchimbi said that he was worried that this could affect his application. “I have been travelling back and forth, sometimes even spending as much as three months out of the country. Does that mean that I won’t be eligible?” he wondered. Preferential treatment The Minister in the Office of the President, Judith Uwizeye, recently told The New Times that new law governing Rwandan nationality offers preferential treatment to people with special skills, talents and those with substantial investment that are needed in the country. “There are people who want to invest in Rwanda and those who have special skills that we lack in the country, and to reside in the country. So, there is no reason to deny them Rwandan nationality,” she said. From 2009 to late 2020, the government had granted nationality to 935 foreign nationals.

News

Parliament, Senate seek middle ground in citizenship act debate