The Sri Lankan government’s decision to stop considering new applications for dual citizenship in 2011 raised questions far beyond immigration and nationality policy.
At the time, several prominent figures associated with the government or Sri Lankan state institutions had connections to foreign citizenship or permanent residency. Among those frequently mentioned in the public debate were Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Investment Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa, former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka and Sri Lanka’s then Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Palitha Kohona.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa was a dual Sri Lankan-American citizen, while Basil Rajapaksa held Sri Lankan citizenship and a U.S. Green Card. Sarath Fonseka was also reported to hold U.S. permanent-resident status, while Palitha Kohona was an Australian citizen in addition to his Sri Lankan citizenship.
The government’s decision to halt the processing of new dual-citizenship applications was not, however, described as retrospective. Those who had already obtained dual citizenship would therefore retain their existing status.
For thousands of Sri Lankans living overseas, the decision nevertheless carried significant consequences.
Why dual citizenship mattered
For Sri Lankans who had settled abroad, obtaining citizenship in another country often provided access to education, employment, security clearances, voting rights and other benefits associated with citizenship in their country of residence.
Yet many expatriate Sri Lankans continued to maintain their Sri Lankan citizenship because of their family connections, property, identity and attachment to the country.
The suspension of new applications therefore prompted questions about why the government had chosen that particular moment to change the policy.
The war-crimes question
One explanation circulating at the time connected the dual-citizenship issue with growing international scrutiny of alleged war crimes committed during the final stages of Sri Lanka’s civil war.
The debate became particularly focused on Palitha Kohona, who was an Australian citizen and a senior Sri Lankan diplomat.
International Tamil advocacy groups had submitted allegations concerning Kohona to the International Criminal Court, relating to claims surrounding the surrender and subsequent deaths of LTTE members during the final stages of the war. Kohona denied wrongdoing.
The significance of his Australian citizenship became part of the wider discussion because Sri Lanka was not a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Critics argued that foreign citizenship could potentially provide a different legal avenue for pursuing allegations involving Sri Lankan officials.
These claims formed part of the political debate surrounding the government’s decision to stop processing new dual-citizenship applications. They did not, by themselves, establish that the policy had been introduced specifically to shield government officials from prosecution.
A policy with consequences for the diaspora
Whatever the political motivation behind the decision, the immediate effect was broader than the cases involving senior officials.
Sri Lankans who had emigrated for employment, education or security could face greater difficulty regaining or retaining formal links to Sri Lanka through dual citizenship.
The controversy therefore brought two very different questions together: the government’s ability to determine who could hold Sri Lankan citizenship, and the growing international debate over accountability for alleged abuses during the civil war.
A controversy that reflected its time
The dual-citizenship dispute cannot be separated from the political atmosphere of early 2011.
Sri Lanka was still dealing with the international consequences of the 2009 end of the civil war. Allegations concerning human-rights violations and possible war crimes were receiving increasing attention overseas, while the government strongly rejected accusations that it had deliberately committed war crimes.
Within Sri Lanka, meanwhile, the question of foreign citizenship among senior officials raised a different issue: whether individuals holding another country’s citizenship or permanent residency should occupy powerful positions within the state.
The government’s decision to stop processing new applications consequently became part of a much larger argument over citizenship, political accountability and Sri Lanka’s relationship with its overseas population.
