Vanuatu’s Court of Appeal has confirmed that individuals who obtain citizenship through the Development Support Programme (DSP) – the country’s citizenship‑by‑investment (CBI) scheme – are classified as “dual citizens” under the Constitution and are permanently barred from voting, even if they later lose their original nationality.
The ruling stems from the case of Sunaraparipooranan Pakshirajan, an Indian‑born investor who received Vanuatu citizenship in August 2021. Indian law automatically revokes Indian citizenship upon voluntary acquisition of another nationality, leaving Pakshirajan with a single Vanuatu passport. When he applied to register as a voter, electoral authorities rejected him on the basis of Article 13(3) of the Vanuatu Constitution, which prohibits dual citizens from voting, holding public office, or participating in local politics.
Court reasoning
- The appellate bench held that “dual‑citizen status” attaches at the moment citizenship is granted through the CBI pathway.
- Any subsequent loss of the foreign nationality does not alter that status.
- The Constitution recognises three categories of citizenship – indigenous, naturalised (Article 12, requiring ten years continuous residence), and dual. DSP investors fall into a separate “dual‑citizen” category, distinct from naturalised citizens.
- Article 4 reserves national sovereignty to “the people of Vanuatu,” defined as indigenous and naturalised citizens only, reinforcing the exclusion of DSP investors from political participation.
Context and commentary
Glen Craig of Pacific Advisory noted that the constitutional restriction reflects the drafters’ intent to prevent external influence in a small electorate – the average parliamentarian is elected with roughly a thousand votes. He described the rule as a “perfect balance” between delivering economic benefits from the program and protecting the political process.
Pakshirajan argued that his extensive qualifications, diplomatic experience, and philanthropic contributions (including establishing the first hemodialysis unit at Vila Central Hospital) should outweigh the constitutional bar. The Court, however, focused solely on the method of acquisition, not on individual merit or contributions.
Prior litigation
Pakshirajan previously challenged the Foreign Service Board’s recruitment process for Vanuatu’s High Commissioner to India in 2025. Both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, finding the Board’s actions lawful. The earlier case underscores that Article 13(3) also blocks DSP citizens from diplomatic appointments, which are reserved for indigenous or naturalised citizens.
How other CBI jurisdictions treat voting rights
| Jurisdiction | Voting restriction model |
|---|---|
| Turkey | No restriction – all citizens 18+ may vote regardless of how citizenship was obtained. |
| Egypt | Five‑year waiting period for political rights after naturalisation; ten‑year ban on election/appointment to parliament (presidential decree can waive). |
| Jordan | No voting ban, but a ten‑year prohibition on parliamentary seats and a five‑year ban on municipal councils for naturalised citizens. |
| Malta | Vote allowed after six months of residence within the preceding 18 months (Constitution). |
| Antigua & Barbuda & other Eastern Caribbean states | Citizenship plus six months’ residence in the constituency required for registration (Representation of the People Act). |
These models create a spectrum: immediate voting rights in Turkey; residency‑based eligibility in Malta and the Caribbean; multi‑year waiting periods in Egypt; office‑only bans in Jordan. Vanuatu’s approach is the most restrictive, permanently excluding DSP investors from any political participation, irrespective of residence duration or loss of the original nationality.
Source article: www.imidaily.com
