168 Mantu whether the appellants had been rendered stateless as a result of losing British citizenship. In determining whether a person is made stateless by a citizenship deprivation order, UK courts have confirmed that the competent authority to decide this issue is the judiciary and not the Secretary of State, who only needs to be satisfied that the person is not made stateless by his order. In the Abu Hamza case, SIAC had to determine if the applicant had lost Egyptian nationality, an issue complicated by the fact that the Egyptian executive enjoyed extensive powers in this area of law, and took as a matter of general practice decisions that were kept secret. The Secretary of State started citizenship deprivation procedures against Abu Hamza, a radical cleric with links to Al Qaeda, in 2002, but his appeal was stayed for several years and the statelessness issue came to be decided only in 2010. Although SIAC argued that there is no internationally or generally agreed standard of proof, it found that statelessness refers to ‘de jure’ statelessness within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the 1954 UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.16 This article defines a stateless person as a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law. This approach to statelessness was seen as having ‘the advantage of aligning domestic law with the UK’s international obligations.’17 The burden of proof was found to rest on the appellant, who must show on the balance of probabilities that the order made him stateless. The determination of this issue normally depends upon an ‘analysis of the nationality laws and public acts of a foreign state or states, facts readily capable of being established on balance of probabilities’.18 As such, ‘the Secretary of State and SIAC are not concerned with the reasonableness of the laws of a foreign state or of decisions made under them to deprive a person of his nationality, but with their effect. If the effect is to deprive a person of nationality and that person has no nationality other than British, he may not be deprived of his British citizenship.’19 A remarkable aspect of the case is that the issue of statelessness was decided based on non-disclosed evidence given by several expert witnesses. These sources suggested that Abu Hamza had most likely been stripped of his Egyptian nationality by an unpublished decree. As a result, the Secretary of State could not deprive him of British citizenship. 16 17 18 19 Abu Hamza al-Masri v SSHD, SIAC, SC/23/2003, date of judgment 5th November 2010, para. 5. See also, UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 28 September 1954, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 360, p. 117, <http://www .refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3840.html> accessed 20 October 2013. Abu Hamza al-Masri v SSHD, para.5. Ibid. Abu Hamza al-Masri v SSHD, para. 6. tilburg law review 19 (2014) 163-170