The High Court has ordered the Minister for Justice and Equality to reconsider whether to cancel and reissue an Ethiopian-born woman’s certificate of naturalisation with a corrected date of birth. The court said that consideration could take account of any report from an inquiry into a proposal to revoke the certificate.
The ruling does not decide the woman’s correct date of birth or whether her citizenship will be revoked. The judge refused the other relief sought in two judicial review cases, without prejudice to her ability to challenge the Minister’s eventual decision.
The dispute arose from different dates on the woman’s Ethiopian birth certificate and passport. The certificate gave a date in both Ethiopian and Gregorian calendar forms; her Ethiopian passport, issued in 2011, stated “24 Sep 75”. She entered 24 September 1975 on her naturalisation application and became an Irish citizen in January 2015. She later told the Department that the Gregorian date was 4 October 1982 and sought to have her certificate corrected.
The Department refused, saying it did not amend certificates based on information supplied by an applicant. After judicial review proceedings challenging that refusal began, the Minister proposed revoking the certificate under section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, citing discrepancies in the date of birth. The woman brought a second judicial review case to challenge that proposal.
The judge held that the Minister had power under the Interpretation Act 2005 to amend a certificate by cancelling it and issuing a replacement. He also found that a general policy against correcting information supplied by applicants did not adequately respect the woman’s right to have her identity details accurately recorded. The Minister must give lawful consideration to her request, but may consider correction and revocation together.
The court declined to declare her date of birth. Because the inquiry process was under way, the judge considered it the more appropriate route to examine the dispute first. He said she could return to court if the process ended without the Minister clarifying what date he considered correct.
The judge also refused to quash the revocation proposal. It was a preliminary step, and the inquiry provided an alternative process in which the woman could respond. The court did not find that the proposal was outside the Minister’s powers or motivated by an improper purpose. Any final decision to revoke remains open to judicial review.