Kenya High Court: EALA MP Passport Order for Abdirahman Shariff's Return

• Kenya's High Court ordered the immediate return of EALA MP Abdirahman Bashir Shariff's Kenyan passport, number CK114667.
• Shariff claims he was denied entry at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport on August 14, 2026, and allegedly deported to Somalia despite being a Kenyan citizen by birth.
• The MP alleges immigration officials seized his passport and questioned his dual citizenship without providing written reasons or a hearing.
• His petition argues the state unlawfully prevented a citizen from entering his own country, citing constitutional rights under Article 16 and Article 39(3).
• The court's order is an interim measure, with substantive constitutional issues and allegations of 'constructive deportation' yet to be fully determined.

At the heart of the legal challenge is the fundamental assertion that the Kenyan state lacks any lawful authority to prevent its own citizen from returning to their home country.

The High Court in Nairobi has issued a directive for the immediate retrieval and return of a Kenyan passport belonging to Abdirahman Bashir Shariff, a Member of Parliament for the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA). This judicial intervention, delivered on September 29, follows Shariff's assertion that he was unlawfully denied entry into Kenya upon his arrival at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) and subsequently deported to Somalia.

Justice Mburu, presiding over Petition No. HCCHRPET/E630/2026, instructed the named respondents to ensure the passport, identified by number CK114667, is released and returned to Shariff or his legal representatives within 24 hours of receiving the court order. This passport, which was issued on January 16, 2023, and is valid until January 15, 2033, is central to the ongoing legal dispute. The order serves as an interim measure, pending a full inter partes hearing and the final determination of Shariff's application.

Shariff, represented by lawyer Ceceil Miller, has formally petitioned the court, contending that as a Kenyan citizen by birth, the state had no legal basis to obstruct his re-entry into the country. His petition forcefully argues that the Republic of Kenya should never be in a position where it prevents its own citizen from entering their homeland. The EALA MP recounts arriving at JKIA from Mogadishu on August 14, 2026, where he was subjected to extensive questioning by immigration officials regarding his Somali citizenship.

He alleges that following this interrogation, immigration officers removed him from the immigration hall and detained him. Initially, Shariff claims he was informed he was not Kenyan and had acquired his passport illegally. This explanation later shifted, with officials reportedly accusing him of failing to declare his dual citizenship. Shariff maintains that he had already demonstrated his dual citizenship declaration was recorded within the immigration system, yet officers insisted on a physical copy. His passport was subsequently seized, he was barred from proceeding through immigration, and ultimately placed on a flight back to Mogadishu. Crucially, Shariff states he received no written explanation for his detention, refusal of entry, removal from the country, or the seizure of his passport, nor was he afforded prior notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

The case has brought into sharp focus the rights of Kenyan citizens who also hold citizenship in another nation. Shariff's petition invokes Article 16 of the Constitution, which affirms that a citizen by birth does not forfeit Kenyan citizenship by acquiring another country's nationality. He further relies on Article 39(3), a constitutional provision guaranteeing every citizen the right to enter, remain in, and reside anywhere within Kenya. The legal challenge posits that his alleged removal from Kenya constitutes what he terms 'constructive deportation,' and he seeks a court declaration that such an action is unconstitutional.

Beyond the constitutional questions, Shariff is also seeking damages, asserting that the alleged actions have resulted in significant financial losses, emotional distress from separation from his family, and other forms of prejudice. He highlights that his Kenyan passport also contains a valid United States visa, which he requires for travel to visit family, and laments that the utility of this visa diminishes with each passing day due to its non-use.

It is important to note that the High Court's recent order pertains specifically to the return of Shariff's passport and does not represent a final judgment on the substantive allegations or the broader constitutional issues raised in his petition. Justice Mburu has directed the respondents in the case to submit their formal responses to the application and petition within a seven-day timeframe.

Following the submission of these responses, Shariff will be granted the opportunity to file a rejoinder and present his written submissions. This will then be followed by further submissions from all parties involved, as the court continues to deliberate on the complex legal and factual questions presented by this significant case concerning Kenya dual citizenship rights and immigration denial of entry.

This High Court order underscores the immediate judicial recourse available to Kenyan citizens facing alleged unlawful denial of entry or passport seizure, particularly those with dual nationality. Lawyers should monitor the final determination of this case to understand the evolving interpretation of constitutional rights regarding entry, residency, and the implications of dual citizenship for clients interacting with immigration authorities, especially concerning potential 'constructive deportation' claims.

Source: Reporting from Nairobi