For more than a decade, citizenship in Bahrain has no longer been merely a legal bond between the citizens and the state. In several documented cases, it has instead become a tool used by the authorities to punish dissidents, activists, and members of their families. Since 2012, the authorities have resorted to revoking citizenship through administrative decisions, judicial rulings, and executive orders, relying on broad terms such as “harming state security,” “violating the duty of loyalty,” and “serving a hostile state.” Over the years, the wording and procedures have changed, but the outcome has remained the same: a citizen loses their nationality, their family faces the consequences of the decision, and in other cases, the outcome is life in exile or statelessness.
Against this backdrop, the measures taken by Bahrain since the outbreak of the US-Israeli war against Iran in March 2026 should not be viewed simply as exceptional actions imposed by wartime circumstances. Rather, the war has provided the authorities with a new context in which to reuse an old tool. What was previously used under labels such as “terrorism” or “serving a hostile state” is now being pursued under new labels, including “sympathy with Iran,” “glorifying the attacks,” and “colluding with foreign entities.”
This report examines Bahrain’s use of the “right to nationality” as a weapon against its citizens. It begins with what occurred on 27 April 2026, when the Bahraini authorities announced the revocation of the citizenship of 69 people, in one of the largest mass citizenship deprivation measures the country has witnessed in recent years, linking the decision to the war and Iranian attacks against Bahrain. The punitive measure was not limited to individuals allegedly responsible for specific acts; rather, it extended collectively to members of the same families. This meant that the consequences were imposed not only on those accused by the authorities, but extended to their family members.
Accordingly, the issue here is not whether Bahrain faces genuine security risks amid a regional war. Rather, the questions are: Does the state, because of the war, have the authority to turn citizenship into a punishment for expression or political views? And can a person’s citizenship be revoked without a fair individual trial, without access to an effective means of appeal, and without ensuring that they do not become stateless?
A Punitive Measure Reintroduced
The war has revived a pattern that Bahrain knows well. Since the outbreak of the peaceful popular movement calling for reform and democracy in 2011, Bahraini citizens have faced detention, prosecution, imprisonment, torture, and exile. Citizenship deprivation was subsequently added to this system as a punishment whose consequences extend beyond imprisonment.
Citizenship deprivation was not a single or consistent measureThe authorities have used it through administrative decisions, collective judicial rulings, and orders linked to deportation. In other cases, it has been coupled with political security cases in which citizens were accused of terrorism or of having links to foreign entities.
By April 2019, the number of people stripped of their citizenship had reached approximately 990, according to documentation by Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB). These documentations are important for understanding the current situation. Bahrain is now once again expanding the use of citizenship deprivation against those it considers opponents or disloyal to the state. What began on 27 April 2026 has now become the latest episode in a systematic pattern of using citizenship to punish citizens and, in some cases, to punish their families as well.
From “Harming State Security” to “Sympathizing with Iran”
A review of Bahrain’s citizenship deprivation decisions reveals changing labels but a consistent approach. In November 2012, the Ministry of Interior revoked the citizenship of 31 people under Article 10 of the 1963 Citizenship Law, on the grounds that they posed a threat to state security. In subsequent years, the use of these powers expanded to include dissidents, activists, religious figures, and human rights defenders, and was often linked to politically motivated security and terrorism cases.
In 2015, 208 people were stripped of their citizenship, and the practice expanded further in 2017 and 2018. In May 2018 alone, 115 people were stripped of their citizenship in a collective case, while in April 2019, a mass ruling revoked the nationality of 138 people. In the “Bahraini Hezbollah” case alone, 169 defendants were convicted, and 138 of them had their citizenship revoked. In these cases, ADHRB documented concerns over arbitrary detention, torture, coerced confessions, and the absence of fair trial guarantees.
The authorities have also used citizenship deprivation as part of judicial penalties imposed on individuals in politically motivated cases. In the case of Sheikh Isa Qassim, the most prominent Shia religious authority in Bahrain, representing the majority of the population, he was stripped of his citizenship in June 2016 in a decision described by human rights organizations as arbitrary. The authorities later linked the decision to a case concerning his religious practices and the collection of khums funds, a religious contribution.
In 2016, the executive framework governing these powers was expanded through Interior Minister Decision No. 89 of 2016 concerning the implementation of Articles 8, 9, and 10 of the Nationality Law. This heightened concerns over the breadth of executive authority in matters of citizenship and the lack of sufficiently objective standards to prevent its use against dissidents.
In other cases, citizenship deprivation was accompanied by imprisonment and then deportation. In January 2018, Bahraini authorities deported seven people after revoking their citizenship, while an eighth person left the country following the issuance of a deportation order.
International pressure, particularly during Bahrain’s Universal Periodic Review before the United Nations Human Rights Council, led to some reforms. In April 2019, Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa restored the citizenship of 551 individuals and formally transferred the authority to revoke citizenship to the Council of Ministers. In practice, however, these reforms failed to address the fundamental problem: those whose citizenship was restored continued to face restrictions affecting housing, healthcare, social security, and political participation, and received no compensation for the harm they suffered during their years of statelessness.
Today, amid the war, the language has changed once again. A citizen is no longer required to be accused of a “terrorism case” or convicted by a court. Instead, it may be enough to accuse them of “sympathizing” by posting a video or expressing their position on the war in a tweet. This means that the boundary between criminal conduct and the exercise of freedom of expression becomes subject to the authorities’ discretion.
69 Citizenships Revoked in a Single Announcement!
On 27 April 2026, Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior announced the revocation of the citizenship of 69 people, linking the decision to the war with Iran and to what it described as “glorifying Iranian hostile acts” or “collaborating with foreign entities.” The decision was issued under Article 10(3) of the Nationality Law, which concerns actions deemed harmful to the interests of the Kingdom or acting in a manner contrary to the duty of loyalty to the state. According to the authorities’ announcement, the number of people covered by the decision, including their family members by extension, was 69 people, all of whom were of non-Bahraini origin according to the official account.
The problem here does not begin with the validity of the allegations made by the authorities. If the state has evidence that an individual has committed a crime, the proper course is to investigate them, refer them to the judiciary, inform them of the charges against them, allow them to defend themselves and challenge the evidence. Provide an avenue to appeal the judgment. But when citizenship becomes an administrative tool of punishment, with an official announcement serving as both the starting point and the endpoint, this fundamentally undermines the relationship between the citizens and the law.
More concerningly, the decision did not specify, for each individual affected, the specific act they had committed, the evidence on which the authorities relied, or the procedures made available to them to challenge the decision or defend themselves.
Collective Punishment
One of the most severe aspects of Bahrain’s citizenship revocation policy is that its consequences have not been limited to the individuals directly targeted by the authorities, but have also extended to children who have committed no wrongdoing. ADHRB documented cases of Bahraini children arbitrarily deprived of citizenship, passports, and official identity documents in the context of measures targeting their fathers because of their political activities or because they had left Bahrain for fear of persecution.
In one case, a girl was born in Bahrain to Bahraini parents but remained for years without an identity card or passport after the authorities refused to issue her documents. This was on the grounds that her father was absent and subject to security-related prosecution. The girl lived apart from her parents and siblings and was unable to travel or attend school normally.
In another case, the authorities refused to issue a passport to a Bahraini child despite a court ruling ordering that he be granted one. This was followed by confirmation from the Ministry of Justice that the appeal period had expired and that the ruling had to be implemented. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Interior did not implement the ruling, leaving the child without documentation, depriving him of certain basic rights and services, and forcing him to live apart from his father and siblings who were outside the country.
The organization also documented two cases involving sisters who were deprived of documentation and citizenship because of their father’s status. The elder sister was born in Bahrain, but the authorities refused to issue her a passport on the grounds that her father was wanted and had to appear in person. The younger sister was born outside Bahrain and was never granted citizenship, leaving her without a recognized nationality or passport.
These cases demonstrate that the impact of citizenship deprivation does not stop with the targeted individual. A punitive measure can extend to depriving a child of a document proving their identity, access to education and travel, or the ability to live normally with their family. When these consequences extend to children who have committed no wrongdoing, citizenship deprivation becomes a tool that forces an entire family to bear the consequences of a punishment that was never imposed on them.
Citizenship in Wartime
The war that erupted in 2026 provided the Bahraini authorities with a new pretext to expand this policy. On April 27, the authorities not only announced the revocation of the citizenship of 69 people, but explicitly linked the decision to the war and Iranian attacks, stating that those targeted had expressed “sympathy for and glorification of” Iranian hostile acts or had engaged in “collaboration with foreign entities.” The official account also included more specific allegations against some individuals, including “receiving funds from Iran, leaking state secrets, training in camps affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and collecting donations under the guise of charitable work and transferring them to Hezbollah.”
The significance of the April 2026 wave is not limited to those named in the decision. A case documented by Amnesty International involving a Bahraini citizen provides a clearer illustration of how an individual can move from merely expressing views online to losing their citizenship and being deported.
According to his account, Ali reposted a video but deleted it approximately three hours later. He also shared with the authorities a Ministry of Interior statement warning against circulating footage of the attacks. After examining his phone and verifying his account, the authorities told him that the matter had been a “misunderstanding.” As he had no criminal record, they required him only to sign an undertaking of loyalty to Bahrain and not to publish content that could harm the country, which he did. However, on 27 April 2026, Ali was summoned to the Passport and Residence Affairs Directorate, where he was asked to hand over his identity card and that of one of his family members and was informed that both their citizenship had been revoked. When he asked for the reason, he was not provided with a judicial decision or a detailed explanation of the allegations. He was told that “these are sovereign decisions.” On 9 May 2026, the authorities deported Ali and one of his family members to another country after issuing them passports valid for only one year and bearing the letter “R,” which presumably indicates “Revoked.”
This particular case is significant because it challenges the narrative that everyone whose citizenship was revoked had undergone a security or judicial procedure in which their responsibility had been established. According to Amnesty International’s documentation, the man had cooperated with the authorities, deleted the material, signed the required undertaking, and had no criminal record. Nevertheless, he ultimately lost his citizenship and was deported.
As in previous waves of citizenship revocation, the April 2026 decision was implemented administratively, without judicial proceedings and without any indication that those named in the decision had been given an opportunity to challenge the allegations against them before losing their citizenship. Bahraini-Danish activist Maryam Al-Khawaja described the measure as an extension of a decades-old practice by the ruling Al Khalifa family of using citizenship as a weapon against dissidents and the country’s Shi’a majority. She noted that many of the affected families are now living in Bahrain stateless, unable to access public education, healthcare, or housing. Human rights activists also reported that some of those named in the announcement had not been given any explanation for the decision before it was publicly announced.
For those affected, statelessness carries consequences that go far beyond the loss of a legal document. Stateless people in Bahrain face routine restrictions on employment, property ownership, freedom of movement, and access to essential public services. Family members, including children born after one parent’s citizenship has been revoked, may also be left without any recognized nationality, a situation that can persist across generations unless the government intervenes.
Preventing Oversight and Accountability
The escalation during the war was not limited to citizens affected by citizenship revocation decisions. The issue also extended into the parliament itself, when three Bahraini MPs opposed legislation concerning the removal of citizenship matters from the scope of judicial oversight.
On 28 April 2026, First Deputy Speaker of the Council of Representatives Abdulnabi Salman, Services Committee Chairman Mamdouh Al-Saleh, and MP Mahdi Al-Shuwaikh abstained from voting in favor of a decree-law that would remove citizenship matters from judicial jurisdiction. It would reclassify them as “sovereign matters” not subject to challenge or appeal. Abdulnabi Salman warned that excluding judicial oversight from a fundamental issue such as citizenship would open the door to broad discretionary powers that could be misused, undermining the administration of justice.
This position cannot be separated from the broader context of ongoing religious persecution in Bahrain. The three MPs are members of the Shia community, whose members and political and religious institutions have long faced discrimination and repression, including arrests, citizenship revocation, and deportation.
Following their position, the three MPs faced a harsh campaign of criticism inside and outside parliament, until the Council of Representatives unanimously voted on 7 May 2026, to revoke their parliamentary membership, based on a petition signed by 37 MPs and approved by the Legislative and Legal Affairs Committee, on the grounds that their positions had breached their parliamentary duties and conflicted with “national constants.” This reveals a deeply concerning development in the punishment of citizenship deprivation, when a citizen faces an authority empowered to make and implement the decision while the door is closed to the body that is supposed to review its legality. The move was viewed as direct political punishment for the three MP’ legitimate exercise of their oversight role, and as another escalation in which Bahrain uses the circumstances of the war with Iran to narrow the space for legitimate political opposition within its own representative institutions.
A Practice That Violates International Law
The arbitrary deprivation of nationality, particularly when carried out without a fair trial and when it results in statelessness, directly conflicts with Bahrain’s obligations under international law. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no one may be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality. This practice also conflicts with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guarantees every child the right to a nationality, and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. This treaty specifically designed to prevent states from rendering individuals stateless through such administrative measures.
Independent experts on statelessness issues have long noted that Bahrain’s use of citizenship revocation reflects a broader global pattern in which states use nationality laws to punish political dissent through deliberately broad legal language, such as “harming the interests of the Kingdom” or “duty of loyalty”. This grants the executive branch broad powers with little to no judicial oversight. Invoking national security concerns in wartime does not exempt a state from its obligations under international law. Exceptions to human rights protections during states of emergency remain subject to strict requirements of necessity and proportionality, standards that blanket and collective decisions to strip families of their nationality are unlikely to meet.
The United Nations Human Rights Council affirmed this principle in a series of successive resolutions entitled “Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality,” the most recent of which was Resolution 26/14, adopted on 26 June 2014. While the resolution acknowledges states’ authority to establish laws governing the acquisition, renunciation, or loss of nationality, it explicitly limits this authority by requiring that such laws be “in accordance with international law,” thereby reaffirming the same principle established by the Permanent Court of International Justice more than nine decades ago. The resolution calls on all states to refrain from adopting discriminatory measures or adopting legislation that arbitrarily deprives individuals of their nationality on the basis of race, color, sex, language, religion, political opinion, or national or social origin, particularly where such measures result in statelessness.
The resolution further calls on states to comply with minimum procedural standards ensuring that decisions to revoke or alter nationality are free of any arbitrary element and subject to judicial or administrative review, to include safeguards in domestic law to prevent statelessness, and to provide effective remedies for those affected, including restoration of nationality. It further urges states to assess the proportionality of any measure to deprive a person of nationality against the interest it seeks to protect, and to refrain from automatically extending citizenship revocation to family members of the affected individual. Taken together, these standards—from the absence of judicial review to the collective deprivation that automatically affected family members—closely reflect the elements lacking in the citizenship revocation processes carried out by Bahrain in April and May 2026.
The Same Old Approach
The citizenship deprivation operations in April and May 2026 demonstrate how a well-established domestic tool of repression can be rapidly repurposed and expanded when a state faces genuine external security threats. Bahrain’s own history shows that nationality revoked in the name of national security during a moment of crisis has remained revoked for years in the past. In many cases, it was not genuinely restored even after the immediate security justification had passed. The precedent set by the revocation waves of 2012 and 2015, which were only partially reversed in 2019, suggests that those affected in 2026 could face years of statelessness regardless of how the war with Iran ultimately ends.
The wartime framing also makes independent verification of the underlying allegations more difficult. Vague accusations of “glorifying” attacks or “sympathizing” with an adversary during wartime are inherently capable of being applied broadly to a wide range of conduct, including peaceful expression of opinion, sharing news, or criticizing government policy — acts that are protected under international human rights law even during armed conflict.
Recommendations
The wave of collective citizenship deprivation carried out by Bahrain in April and May 2026 is not an isolated incident from the country’s history. It rather represents the reuse of a tool the authorities have relied on for more than a decade against Bahraini citizens. What is new in 2026 is that the war has provided political and security cover for the renewed expansion of this tool, introducing broader and more ambiguous language. At a time when the space for political and civil expression inside Bahrain is shrinking.
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) emphasizes that the wave of collective citizenship deprivation carried out in April and May 2026 forms part of a long-standing documented pattern of arbitrary citizenship deprivation used by the Bahraini government to punish political dissent. It also collectively targets the country’s Shia majority. Invoking the circumstances of the war with Iran does not exempt Bahrain from its obligations to prevent statelessness and ensure a fair trial before depriving any individual of their citizenship.
Accordingly, ADHRB calls on the government of Bahrain to:
- Reverse citizenship revocations carried out without individual judicial proceedings meeting fair trial standards.
- Restore citizenship to everyone arbitrarily deprived of it, particularly those who have rendered stateless.
- End the deprivation of citizenship of family members by extension and ensure that children are not made to bear the consequences of acts they did not commit.
- Guarantee every person’s right to know the reasons for the decision taken against them, access the evidence, and to appeal the decision before an independent judicial body.
- Review Article 10 of the Citizenship Law and all other provisions and procedures that grant authorities broad and undefined powers to revoke citizenship, ensuring their compliance with international standards.
- Provide effective redress for individuals and families harmed as a result of citizenship revocation, deportation, or the loss of documentation and essential services.
- End the use of vague language as a basis for measures affecting a fundamental right such as the right to nationality, unless the acts are clearly defined in law and subject to judicial review.
- Enable the international community, including the UN Human Rights Council and Bahrain’s allied states, to exert meaningful pressure on Manama to end the use of citizenship as a tool of political repression.
