On 19 November 2025, a proposed legislation “on drug testing in transition houses and on the loss of Belgian nationality” was introduced in the Chamber of Representatives (DOC 56 1164/001).
From the very first reading, a feeling of discomfort arises: the text starts from an issue relating to drug management in detention and uses it to significantly toughen the rules on deprivation of nationality — even when the measures have no link with drug-related matters in prison.
In summary, regarding nationality, the draft law:
- requires judges to automatically rule on whether nationality should be withdrawn in cases of terrorism convictions;
- extends the time period during which deprivation can be pronounced; and
- broadens the list of offences concerned, including sexual offences.
By obliging the judge to rule ex officio on deprivation of nationality in terrorism cases — whereas judges already have the possibility to do so — the text may appear as expressing a form of mistrust towards the judiciary. In any event, if enacted, this measure will add tasks to courts that are already overstretched.
More broadly, the Council of State clearly emphasised that the amendments relating to nationality in this bill raise issues of constitutional compliance, due to insufficient justification.
The government responded in a very brief and thin way to the Council of State’s opinion, claiming in particular that the spirit of the law would comply with Article 8.3 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. This is not the case. That provision allows an exceptional derogation enabling a State to render a person stateless if they have engaged in behaviour of extreme gravity, such as serious threats to State security, treason, hostile acts including espionage, crimes directed against the State itself, etc. It is not meant to be a general criminal policy tool, even for very serious acts. The current Belgian bill therefore wrongly invokes this provision to justify a much broader punitive framework, including the possibility of deprivation of nationality for a wide range of offences, including sexual offences — without providing precise justification for situations that could, potentially, warrant such an extreme measure. Referring to the 1961 Convention is therefore misleading if presented as a broad green light to multiply the grounds for deprivation, including in situations with no direct link to State security.
In short: yes, the Convention tolerates, exceptionally, certain deprivations of nationality even at the cost of statelessness; no, it does not legitimise a broad, vague and politicised regime that lumps together terrorism, organised crime and morality offences under a single umbrella.
The government’s additional justifications fall far short of addressing the concerns raised by the Council of State.
Each potential deprivation case will also trigger cascading consequences before the Immigration Office and subsequently, likely, before the Council for Alien Law Litigation.
Foreign nationals without residence rights may already be deported on grounds of public order. Those who hold residence permits may have them withdrawn for public order reasons. Toughening criminal penalties or introducing deprivation of nationality will not, however, resolve the very concrete operational problems linked to the enforcement of expulsions — if that were one of Belgium’s aims. This is in particular because some foreign States refuse to recognise certain individuals as their nationals and therefore do not issue the necessary travel documents.
Thus, the draft law will neither empty our overcrowded prisons nor remove from the country individuals deemed dangerous. Stripping a dual national of their Belgian nationality will not, in practice, address the legitimate public safety concerns of the population. It may send a political message, certainly, but it is not an operational solution.
If adopted, the law will instead create more precarious, more contentious, more costly situations, placing an irresponsible additional burden on the justice system and on administrative authorities.
Céline Verbrouck
Attorney at the Brussels Bar
Specialized in Immigration Law, Nationality Law, and International Family Law
www.altea.be
+32 2 894 45 70