The Tragedy of Dual Nationals!

By Ali Askouri

The issue of dual nationality has resurfaced recently with the amendment of the constitutional document a few days ago.

I am one of those with dual nationality, but I am not writing in self-defense—there is nothing that requires my defense. Rather, I write on behalf of the millions of Sudanese who were driven out by the Salvation Regime, forcing them to flee their country in search of refuge and safety for themselves and their families. Sudanese have spread across the world, escaping the brutality of the regime, from New Zealand in the far southeast to Europe and California in the far west. Some even reached Chile and Brazil in South America.

I am not defending their right to hold public office, which is a legitimate right. Instead, I aim to refute the implicit, unspoken accusation that they are “traitors” with no loyalty to their homeland. No matter how much those who write these articles try to disguise their insinuations, any reader—even one who is not particularly perceptive—can understand their underlying message. If there were no fundamental doubt about the patriotism of these groups, no one would have bothered to write articles questioning whether dual nationals should be barred from public office. If their loyalty were not in question, this issue would not have been raised in the first place.

Unfortunately, there are no accurate statistics on the number of dual nationals. However, if we count the early migrants, their children, and even their grandchildren, we are undoubtedly talking about several million people. Yet, some writers see all these individuals as “suspect” and urge extreme caution toward them, as their loyalty to their homeland remains questionable in their eyes.

The reality is that Sudanese never sought foreign citizenship after independence until 1989. Before then, dual nationals were a very limited group—mostly the children of students sent abroad for higher education, born in Britain or the U.S., where laws granted citizenship by birth (e.g., the UK until 1983). Additionally, a small number had migrated due to life circumstances. The total of these individuals—whether born abroad or migrants—did not exceed a few hundred. That changed with the 1989 coup.

The Salvation Regime was the first to amend Sudan’s constitution to allow foreigners to obtain Sudanese nationality with extreme ease, aiming to accommodate and protect Al-Qaeda terrorists whom the regime welcomed. Later, the regime noticed that many of its leaders held other nationalities, particularly Canadian, British, and American. To enable them to hold leadership positions, they amended the constitution to permit dual nationality for Sudanese citizens. Article 7(4) of the 2005 Constitution explicitly grants any Sudanese the right to acquire another nationality.

For thirty long years, Sudanese abroad protested and demonstrated against the Salvation Regime. Many died and were buried in foreign lands, unable to visit their homeland or bid farewell to their families and loved ones. They passed away with deep sorrow in their hearts. Their comrades continued the struggle against the regime until it fell. Some returned after its downfall to visit their families, while others did not—perhaps due to health reasons as they aged. But in any case, they never remained silent about the regime’s crimes, particularly those in Darfur, which were prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.

Dual nationals do not need anyone to grant them a certificate of patriotism. They are no less patriotic than anyone else. If suspicions and veiled accusations of weak allegiance or betrayal are the standard, then dual nationals could equally argue that those who lived under the regime, amassed wealth under its rule, and remained silent about its grave human rights violations are corrupt and unfit for public office.

Meanwhile, figures like Hemedti, Abdel Rahim, Omar Al-Degair, Khalid Selaik, Mariam Al-Sadiq, Sadiq Al-Sadiq, Jaafar Saffar, and Mohamed Al-Faki are actively conspiring to destroy the country and fuel wars, despite not holding dual nationality—at least to our knowledge. At the same time, tens of thousands of dual nationals in London, Brussels, Bonn, Washington, New York, Paris, Geneva, and Ireland are fiercely defending their homeland. How is that just?

Moreover, dual nationals have been actively sending volunteer doctors, medical supplies, and other aid to Sudan. Even more significantly, dozens of young men from Western Europe have returned to fight and defend their country. Yet, these patriotic acts are ignored by those with clouded vision or ulterior motives. How is this fair? Preferring militia leaders and their enablers from the Forces of Freedom and Change/Tagaddum—who are destroying the country—over dual nationals who have been defending Sudan abroad is an illogical and irrational stance.

The shocking issue is not the denial of public office to dual nationals, even though it is their constitutional right. What is truly painful is the insinuation of betrayal in some writings, where authors lack the courage to state their accusations outright.

Ultimately, our country will not improve unless the constitution is respected. As long as the constitution grants dual nationals full rights like any other citizens, no one has the right to question their loyalty, strip them of their rights, or write articles subtly accusing them of treason or foreign allegiance.

Anyone who suffers from delusions about dual nationals should follow legal procedures and challenge the constitutional provisions that grant them equal rights, rather than hiding behind vague phrases and ambiguous rhetoric that contradict the constitution.

These writers expect dual nationals to protest and draw international attention to the militia’s crimes—only to later discard them, denying them rights and questioning their allegiance. If that is the case, why didn’t these writers initially declare that dual nationals should never protest at all, since, according to them, what happens in Sudan is no longer their concern?

Constitutional rights should never be subject to political bargaining, especially when those being targeted are more patriotic than the ones writing these accusations. Those who seek to divide Sudanese, undermine the efforts of expatriates, and dismantle national unity are wielding one of the most dangerous weapons against our collective strength—especially abroad.

As far as we know, none of those who protested abroad for their country were seeking public office. So why question their allegiance and loyalty? Who benefits from these divisive articles?

Sudan cannot afford to lose the efforts of its citizens abroad. If nothing else, those with short-sighted views should, at the very least, remain silent!

This Land Is Ours.

(Originally published in “Sudanese Echoes”)