The Algerian government’s recent amendment to the Nationality Code, expanding the grounds for stripping citizens of their citizenship, is framed officially as a legal update. However, the rhetoric surrounding its passage reveals a deeper, more politically charged objective: targeting diaspora-based opposition groups perceived as threats to state sovereignty.
While Minister of Justice Lotfi Boudjemaa presented the bill to the People’s National Assembly (APN) in December as an effort to “adapt the legal framework to the provisions of the Constitution and Algeria’s international commitments“, his subsequent comments before the Senate’s legal commission were strikingly different. They shifted the focus from bureaucratic alignment to a direct confrontation with Algerians abroad whose activism is deemed hostile.
Minister Boudjemaa explicitly linked the law to the “profound transformations” of the digital age, arguing that the development of information and communication technologies has had “negative” effects. He stated these tools enable “attempts to destabilize the loyalty” of citizens. This framing positions the law not just as a penal code update, but as a national security measure in an era of online activism and transnational political mobilization.
“A Threat to National Sovereignty”
His condemnation was unequivocal: “In recent years, regrettable behaviors by some Algerians residing abroad have been observed. They have disengaged from their national belonging… under the influence of external forces seeking to weaken social cohesion… these behaviors have become a threat to national sovereignty, the country’s unity, territorial integrity, and national security.” This language echoes global trends where states label dissent as foreign-instigated subversion, a common tactic to delegitimize opposition.
The primary target of this rhetoric appears to be the Movement for the Self-Determination of Kabylia (MAK), a group advocating for the independence of the Kabylie region. The MAK’s unilateral proclamation of Kabylia’s “independence” in mid-December 2025 provided immediate context for the minister’s warnings. However, the broad legal criteria suggest a wider net could be cast. Boudjemaa lamented that physical distance fostered a “sense of impunity,” which this law aims to shatter by introducing the ultimate domestic sanction: statelessness (or more precisely, the loss of Algerian nationality).
The law itself establishes specific, though expansive, grounds for revocation. These include:
1. Serious harm to Algeria’s interests, national unity, or state security—a highly subjective category open to political interpretation.
2. Proven loyalty to a foreign state.
3. Providing services or advantages to foreign powers for harmful purposes.
4. Involvement in or financing of terrorist or subversive organizations.
A critical safeguard is that revocation of nationality “by origin” (i.e., for those born Algerian) is only permissible if the individual holds another nationality, except in extreme cases like high treason or bearing arms against the state. This is likely an attempt to align with international law norms that prohibit rendering a person stateless.
“Strict Regulation”
Procedurally, the minister outlined a “strict regulation” involving solid evidence, formal notice, and the right to a defense. A special commission will be established to examine cases, though its composition—to be defined later by regulation—will be crucial in determining its independence and fairness. This combination of broad substantive criteria and a specialized administrative body is characteristic of national security legislation worldwide, where legal processes are created to manage politically sensitive cases.
Broader Context & Implications: This move is not isolated. It fits a pattern where nations, including Bahrain, the United Kingdom, and others, have expanded citizenship revocation powers, primarily targeting individuals accused of terrorism or treason. For Algeria, it represents a powerful new tool to manage diaspora politics. It sends a chilling message to critics abroad: your activism can now cost you your formal legal tie to the homeland. Beyond the MAK, it could potentially affect journalists, human rights activists, or political figures in exile who are deemed to “harm national unity” through their criticism. While packaged with modernizing reforms like the digitization of other nationality services, the core of this law is a stark assertion of state power over the transnational citizen, redefining the boundaries of permissible dissent in the 21st century.