Op-Ed Analysis. On December 24, 2025, the Algerian People’s National Assembly (APN) adopted a significant and contentious amendment to the Algerian Nationality Code. This legislative move introduces a new Article 22 bis, which empowers the state to revoke the nationality of origin from any Algerian citizen who, while abroad, commits acts deemed to cause “serious harm to the interests of the Algerian State.” While framed as a tool to protect national security, this provision represents a profound shift in the relationship between citizen and state, crossing a red line for democratic principles.
This is not a novel concept; a similar draft was floated in March 2021 and met with robust criticism. Its revival and passage now demand a deeper examination that moves beyond immediate political context to consider foundational legal philosophy, human rights, and the very nature of citizenship in a constitutional democracy.
1 – An infringement of a fundamental right
The Philosophical and Legal Foundation: Nationality as an Inherent Right, Not a State Grant
The core argument against this amendment rests on a critical distinction: Is nationality a privilege granted by the state, or is it an inherent right of personhood derived from one’s fundamental belonging to a political community? The amendment operates on the former assumption, treating citizenship as a conditional contract. However, a more profound legal and ethical understanding aligns with the latter.
Algerian nationality of origin, as defined by Article 6 of the Code itself, is acquired at birth through filiation (an Algerian father or mother). It is not an administrative act but a recognition of a pre-existing fact. To use a biological metaphor invoked by the author—though the legal principle stands stronger without it—this nationality is constitutive of the citizen’s legal identity from inception. Just as the state does not “grant” someone their lineage or family, it should not claim the power to sever this fundamental juridical link. This view positions nationality as a “right to have rights,” the primary key that unlocks all other civic protections and responsibilities. Its revocation doesn’t just punish an act; it attempts to erase a person’s foundational political identity, rendering them stateless in relation to their homeland.
The Perils of Disproportionate and Discriminatory Punishment
Every society has the right and duty to punish crimes severely. However, criminal law must be rooted in the principle of proportionality—the punishment must fit the crime. Revocation of inherent nationality is a uniquely severe sanction. It is often permanent and extends beyond the individual to potentially impact their family. More critically, it conflates the punishment of a specific act (e.g., espionage, incitement to violence) with the punishment of belonging. It says, in effect, “Your crime is so grave that we disavow your very membership in our community.” This moves justice from a penal framework into an existential one, a power democracies have historically been wary of granting the state.
2 – Inequality of citizens before the law
Creating a Two-Tiered Citizenship: A Breach of Constitutional Equality
The amendment’s specific targeting of acts committed “outside the national territory” creates a dangerous legal duality. It establishes two classes of Algerian citizens: those residing domestically, subject only to the penal code for their actions, and those in the diaspora, who face the additional, existential threat of denationalization for the same offenses.
This is a direct affront to Article 37 of the Algerian Constitution, which guarantees that “citizens are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection thereof, without any discrimination prevailing.” The location of an offense does not alter the nature of the offender’s bond to the nation. Such a geographic distinction is inherently discriminatory and politically charged, suggesting that loyalty is more suspect and punishable more harshly when a citizen is abroad. It weaponizes citizenship against the diaspora, turning a bond of identity into a tool of political control.
The Slippery Slope: From Exceptional Measure to Political Tool
Proponents argue the measure will be used exceptionally, with safeguards. Yet, history and political science offer a stark warning: laws that grant the state the power to strip core rights “in extreme cases” inherently contain the seeds of abuse. The vague terminology—”serious harm to the interests of the State”—is susceptible to expansive interpretation by future governments. What constitutes “harm” can shift with political winds, transforming a tool meant for national security into one for silencing dissent, settling scores, or targeting specific ethnic or political groups abroad. The admission that the law responds to “accelerated transformations and growing challenges” confirms its circumstantial, politically reactive nature, undermining the timeless, impersonal ideal of just law.
3 – Risk of authoritarian drift: a risk of principle, not of intention
Conclusion: Democratic Strength Lies in Self-Restraint
The true test of a robust democracy is not the breadth of its powers to punish and exclude, but the depth of its commitment to restraint and inclusion. A democracy strengthens when it forbids itself certain actions, recognizing that some lines must not be crossed to preserve its own legitimacy and the inalienable dignity of its citizens.
Refusing the revocation of inherent nationality is not an act of weakness or permissiveness toward crime. It is an act of profound maturity—moral, ethical, and legal. It affirms that the bond of nationhood is stronger than any single transgression and that justice is served through proportional penal sanctions, not through the existential violence of statelessness. This amendment, though adopted, should proceed no further. A referral to the Constitutional Court is imperative to evaluate its compatibility with the foundational principles of equality, non-discrimination, and the inviolable core of citizenship itself. To cross this line is to weaken the very democratic fabric it claims to protect.
*Analysis by a Doctor in Law, Blida