By David Wroe
Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton insists the revocation of terrorist Neil Prakash’s Australian citizenship is legally sound because he is also a Fijian national but has refused to detail the supporting advice from the government’s lawyers.
The stripping of Prakash’s citizenship was thrown into doubt on Tuesday after a senior Fijian immigration official said the Islamic State member was not a national of Fiji.
Australian terrorists can have their citizenship revoked under a 2015 law but only if they have a second citizenship and therefore would not be rendered stateless.
“The legal advice available to the government based on all the intricate detail and fact of this particular matter is that Mr Prakash is by operation of law a citizen of Fiji,” Mr Dutton said.
He said he was “not going into the legal advice”. It had come from the Australian Government Solicitor and the Attorney-General’s Department and been considered by the citizenship loss board - a group of senior officials from across departments and intelligence agencies.
Prakash could challenge the revocation of his citizenship in court, Mr Dutton said.
Prakash is in jail in Turkey facing terrorism charges. Australia has also applied for his extradition so he can face terrorism charges in this country.
On Tuesday, the director of Fiji’s Immigration Department, Nemani Vuniwaqa, was quoted by the Fiji Sun newspaper as saying that Prakash “has not been or is a Fijian citizen”.
As the Melbourne-born son of a Fijian father and Cambodian mother, Prakash would have had to apply for Fijian citizenship, he said.
“The department has searched the immigration system and confirms that he has not entered the country nor applied for citizenship since birth,” he said.
Mr Vuniwaqa could not be reached on Wednesday.
While citizenship law can be complex and changeable - as the recent citizenship saga among parliamentarians showed - Fiji’s current law appears to state someone in Prakash’s situation would need to register and to have lived in Fiji for at least three years.
Neil Prakash featured in several Islamic State propaganda videos.Credit: AAP
There have been previous citizenship laws. But the other version most relevant to Prakash, who was born in 1991, also suggests he would not be a citizen.
The country’s 1990 constitution - which covered citizenship - states that a person born outside Fiji becomes a citizen if their father is Fijian. If Prakash’s father had become an Australian he would have forfeited his Fijian citizenship however.
And once Prakash turned 21, he would have had 12 months to choose between being Fijian and Australian. Prakash clearly remained an Australian and therefore would have lost his Fijian citizenship.
Asked about Mr Vuniwaqa’s comments, Mr Dutton said: “We’ve a great deal of respect for the Fijians, but the legal advice to us on the operation of law in relation to Mr Prakash was clear.”
He said the Fijians were advised “some time ago” of the government’s declaration.
He also hinted Fiji might not want to accept him as a citizen out of fear he might return there if he is ever released from prison in Turkey.
“We don’t want terrorists back in our country … You’d imagine Fiji, the United States, anyone else would be of a similar mind.”
But he said he was not aware of Fiji having disputed Australia’s revocation of Prakash’s citizenship when it was advised.
After Labor went on the attack over the Prakash issue, with immigration spokesman Shayne Neumann saying there were “serious questions that Peter Dutton has to answer”, Mr Dutton accused the opposition of siding with Prakash.
“Prakash is a bad person. I don’t know why Labor need to side on the side of people like Prakash over Australians,” he said.