Procedural guarantees and safeguards and specific considerations regarding Clause 9 of Nationality and Borders Bill Sufficient procedural guarantees and safeguards must be in place to protect against the risk of arbitrariness in the decision-making process. The UN has frequently underlined States’ obligation to observe what it terms “minimum procedural standards”. 28 Those standards are “essential to prevent abuse of the law”. 29 They apply in all cases, whether or not statelessness is involved. 30 In practice, the individual concerned must be notified in writing of the intent to deprive nationality prior to the actual decision to do so, 31 to ensure that the individual is able to provide facts, arguments and evidence in defence of their case, which are to be taken into account by the relevant authority. This is important as it allows the person concerned to provide facts, arguments and evidence in defence of their case, which might be relevant for the decision to deprive nationality, before any decision is taken. In addition, due process must be respected at all times as a matter of international law. 32 This obligation is made explicit in Article 8(4) of the 1961 Convention, which provides that those whose nationality has been revoked must be granted the right to a fair hearing by a court of law or another independent body. The minimum content of the requirement of due process in this context is that an individual is able to understand the reasons why their nationality has been withdrawn and has access to legal and/or administrative avenues through which they may challenge the withdrawal of nationality. The fairness of proceedings can only be ensured if the individual has access to all relevant information and documents relating to the deprivation decision 33, and that the individual is entitled to participate personally, arguing his/her case in front of a court or other independent body 34. We are concerned that under the current provisions in clause 9, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be empowered to deprive a person of their British nationality without notice under a range of circumstances. In particular, obligation to notify the concerned individual would be lifted if: 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (a) the Secretary of State does not have the information needed to be able to give notice under that subsection, (b) it would for any other reason not be reasonably practicable to give notice under that subsection, or ‘Human Rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/34, 14 December 2009, paras 43 and 63; UN HRC, ‘Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality’, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/13/2, 24 March 2010, para. 10; UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality’, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/20/5, 16 July 2012, para. 10. ‘Human Rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/34, 14 December 2009, para. 43. UNHCR, ‘UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5’ (May 2020), para. 100. Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, ‘Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure’, Principle 7.6.2. Article 14 ICCPR, UNHCR, ‘UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5’ (May 2020), para. 98. European Court of Human Rights, McGinley and Egan v. The United Kingdom, 21825/93 and 23414/94, 9 June 1998. UNHCR, ‘UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5’ (May 2020), para. 74 (“contest the facts and arguments … in front of a court or other independent body”); Anudo Ochieng Naudo v United Republic of Tanzania, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Judgment, 22 March 2018, para. 79 (“allowing the concerned to defend himself before an international body”). 7