Recent months and years have seen repeated attempts to deprive or disqualify otherwise well-qualified members of the Bangladeshi diaspora from positions of national importance simply because they hold dual citizenship. Bangladesh celebrates its diaspora when it sends remittances, opens markets, shares expertise or responds to emergencies. Yet when an accomplished member seeks to serve in Parliament, the Cabinet or another senior office, a second nationality can suddenly become evidence of inadequate loyalty.

That contradiction is not merely unfair; it is a constitutional and policy anomaly.

Bangladesh should replace the blanket exclusion of lawful dual citizens with a system of office-specific eligibility, mandatory disclosure and proportionate security safeguards. Holding another nationality should not automatically disqualify a citizen from public service. Instead, eligibility should depend on the responsibilities and risks of the particular office, with stricter rules for positions involving defence, intelligence, foreign affairs or access to classified information.

Bangladeshis abroad have become professors, physicians, engineers, entrepreneurs, lawyers, civil servants and elected representatives. Many retain strong family, emotional and economic ties with Bangladesh and could contribute valuable knowledge, networks and administrative experience. Yet Article 66(2)(c) of the Constitution disqualifies from election to Parliament anyone who “acquires the citizenship of, or affirms or acknowledges allegiance to, a foreign state.”

This contradiction is becoming increasingly difficult to defend, and the issue requires serious national debate.

A contradiction within our citizenship policy

Bangladesh already accepts the principle that a person may lawfully retain connections with more than one country. Article 2B(2) of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1972 authorises the government to extend Bangladeshi citizenship to citizens of specified foreign states. Bangladesh also operates a formal procedure for issuing Dual Nationality Certificates.

The state therefore recognises dual nationality for purposes such as residence, travel, property ownership, inheritance, investment and maintaining a legal bond with Bangladesh. The problem arises when that same lawful status is treated as presumptive evidence of divided loyalty in political and public life.

The constitutional position also requires careful explanation. Article 66(2)(c) contains the foreign-citizenship disqualification, while Article 66(2A) provides a route by which a Bangladeshi citizen by birth who acquired foreign citizenship may escape that disqualification by giving up the foreign citizenship. In effect, however, such a person must surrender the second nationality before becoming eligible for Parliament.

The consequences extend beyond Parliament. Under Article 48, the President must be qualified for election as a member of Parliament. The Prime Minister must be an MP, while Article 56 requires ministers appointed from outside Parliament to be qualified for parliamentary election. Thus, one disqualification closes several of the most important doors in the Republic.

The position is not identical for every constitutional or government office. Judges, commissioners, advisers, senior officials and heads of statutory bodies are governed by different constitutional provisions, laws and service rules. Some offices carry no express constitutional prohibition against dual nationality. Nevertheless, the presumption against dual citizens often influences appointments well beyond the strict scope of Article 66.

This is where Bangladesh must distinguish between legitimate security concerns and an indiscriminate suspicion of its global citizens.

Why countries permit dual nationality

Dual nationality has expanded because the modern world no longer fits neatly into a “one person, one country” formula. Migration, marriage, birth abroad, political displacement and internationally mobile careers routinely create legal and emotional attachments to more than one state.

Countries permit dual nationality for practical as well as moral reasons. It enables emigrants and their descendants to retain a legal bond with their country of origin. It encourages investment, philanthropy, skills transfer, cultural continuity and international advocacy. It also recognises that citizenship is more than a travel document: it represents identity, family history and membership in a political community.

Some countries—including India, China, Singapore and Japan—remain restrictive. Their concerns include divided allegiance, conflicting civic or military duties, diplomatic complications and foreign influence. Such concerns cannot simply be dismissed, particularly in defence, intelligence and other security-sensitive institutions.

But two separate questions must not be confused.

The first is whether a country permits dual nationality at all.

The second is whether a country that has already recognised someone as its citizen should exclude that citizen from political and public service merely because of the very status the state has permitted.

Bangladesh permits dual nationality in defined circumstances.

It is therefore inconsistent to recognise a person as Bangladeshi for remittances, investment, property and national celebration, but require that person to abandon a lawful second nationality before being considered for elected office.

What other democracies do

International practice does not support the claim that dual nationality and public responsibility are inherently incompatible.

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that every Canadian citizen has the right to vote and to be qualified for membership in the House of Commons or a provincial legislature. It does not impose a general sole-citizenship requirement. Justice Canada confirms this constitutional right.

The United Kingdom is similarly open. The British government confirmed in 2024 that a British citizen holding dual nationality may vote and stand in parliamentary and local elections if the ordinary qualifications are satisfied. Its Civil Service rules take a particularly sensible approach: dual nationals are eligible in principle, but additional nationality requirements may be imposed for narrowly defined reserved posts.  

The United States Constitution prescribes age, residence and periods of US citizenship for membership of Congress; it does not impose a general sole-citizenship rule. The American system relies more heavily on constitutional oaths, disclosure, conflict-of-interest laws, elections and institutional oversight than on a universal passport test.

New Zealand and France also generally permit dual nationals to enter national politics, subject to their wider electoral and integrity laws. Their experience has not demonstrated that dual citizens, as a class, are less capable of public loyalty than sole citizens.

Australian  Constitution disqualifies persons who are citizens of, or entitled to the rights of, a foreign power. A parliamentary committee has recently  concluded that the provision was no longer operating effectively to protect parliamentary integrity and national sovereignty and recommended constitutional reform. 

These countries do not follow one identical model. What they demonstrate is that democratic states can assess citizenship, loyalty, security and conflicts of interest without automatically equating a second nationality with disloyalty.

The diaspora has already passed the test

Bangladesh need not look abroad for evidence of diaspora patriotism.

During the Liberation War of 1971, Bangladeshis overseas organised demonstrations, mobilised public opinion, raised funds, assisted the provisional government and lobbied foreign political leaders and the international media.

In later decades, diaspora communities have repeatedly supported Bangladesh during cyclones, floods and other national emergencies. They have financed schools and hospitals, established businesses, promoted exports, sponsored students and represented Bangladesh in institutions where Dhaka itself has limited reach.

The second and third generations are also producing professionals with expertise in artificial intelligence, medicine, engineering, finance, public administration, climate policy, education and international law. Bangladesh cannot realistically aspire to become a knowledge-based economy while treating this reservoir of human capital principally as a source of money and occasional advice.

No community, of course, is uniformly virtuous. A dual citizen may act dishonestly, just as a sole citizen may. Bangladesh’s gravest experiences of corruption, abuse of power and illicit transfer of wealth cannot plausibly be attributed to dual nationality.

A single passport has never guaranteed patriotism; two passports do not establish its absence.

Public office should not be awarded as a favour to the diaspora or as compensation for remittances. It must be based on competence, integrity and commitment. The argument is not that expatriate Bangladeshis deserve a quota. It is that Bangladesh should not discard qualified citizens before examining their merit.

A reform Bangladesh can safely adopt

Bangladesh should replace categorical exclusion with a tiered framework based on the sensitivity of each office.

First, Article 66 of Constitution should be amended so that lawful dual nationality alone does not disqualify a citizen from election to Parliament. Candidates should be required to disclose every nationality, foreign residence right, public position, financial interest, tax obligation and material benefit received from a foreign state. Deliberate concealment should result in disqualification and meaningful penalties.

Second, Parliament may retain sole-citizenship requirements for a short and precisely defined category of offices. These might include the President; the Prime Minister; ministers directly responsible for defence, home affairs and foreign affairs; chiefs of the armed forces; and specified senior intelligence positions. Eligibility could be restored following formal renunciation and, where justified, a defined period of principal residence in Bangladesh.

Third, dual citizens should generally be eligible for other ministerial, advisory, regulatory, academic, diplomatic and administrative appointments, subject to appropriate vetting. That scrutiny should examine criminal history, unexplained wealth, employment by foreign governments, conflicting official duties, overseas political donations and access to classified information.

Fourth, every holder of high office—whether a dual or sole citizen—should face the same robust integrity rules: public asset declarations covering overseas holdings, disclosure of beneficial ownership, enforceable tax compliance, conflict-of-interest and recusal requirements, and penalties for transferring illicit assets abroad. These measures address actual risks. A passport prohibition does not.

Finally, the law should distinguish nationality voluntarily acquired in adulthood from citizenship automatically inherited through birth or parentage. It is especially unjust to exclude a Bangladeshi because another country’s law conferred citizenship upon that person—sometimes without his or her knowledge or consent. A foreign legislature should not indirectly determine who is eligible to represent the people of Bangladesh.

Patriotism cannot be counted in passports

Bangladesh should protect its sovereignty without wasting its human capital. It can do both—but only by abandoning blanket exclusion and adopting office-specific eligibility, disclosure, integrity checks and proportionate security safeguards.

The central question should not be, “How many passports do you hold?” It should be: “Will you serve Bangladesh faithfully, transparently and competently?”

That commitment must be judged through oath, conduct, residence, financial scrutiny and accountability—not inferred mechanically from possession of an additional passport. A lawful dual citizen should not be presumed disloyal, nor should every public office be treated as though it presents the same security risk.

Opening public service to qualified dual citizens would not weaken Bangladesh’s sovereignty. Properly designed, it would protect the Republic while enabling some of its most capable global citizens to help build its future.