The Bills and Legislation Committee has raised concerns about the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2026, saying the proposed changes appear to have no clearly documented government policy behind them.
The concerns were raised at the committee's hearing on the bill on 2 November, attended by representatives of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Committee member and Leader of the Parliamentary Opposition Hon Manasseh Sogavare questioned the ministry on the policy justification for the amendments and asked the government to explain the policy foundation on which the bill was developed.
Sogavare said legislation should not be developed in isolation but must be grounded in an established government policy that identifies the issues requiring legislative action and justifies the proposed changes.
He said there appeared to be no publicly identifiable policy document setting out the government's objectives, the specific problem it intends to address, the evidence supporting the amendments, the expected outcomes, or why changes to the existing Citizenship Act 2018 are necessary.
Public consultation mattered in this case because the amendments concerned the rights and legal status of Solomon Islands citizens, Sogavare said. People whose rights may be affected must be given a genuine opportunity to put their views before decisions are made that could carry significant implications for their citizenship rights, he said.
Member of Parliament for Hograno/Kia/Havulei Hon Jeremiah Manele said the absence of a documented policy framework was a serious weakness in the government's legislative policy development process.
Sound legislative development required the government to first identify and define the public policy problem, set clear policy objectives, carry out research and consultation, assess alternative options and decide the legislative measures needed to carry out the preferred policy, Manele said.
Member of Parliament for Central Honiara Hon Gordon Darcy Lilo said the absence of a documented policy framework raised questions about whether the bill had been adequately conceived, justified and prepared.
Lilo said that if the government could not show that a proper policy development process had been undertaken, the bill should be withdrawn or deferred until a comprehensive policy review, public consultation and legal scrutiny had been completed.
The committee said citizenship was too fundamental an issue to be treated as an ordinary legislative matter, and that any changes must be supported by sound policy, consistent with the Constitution and protective of the rights of citizens.
It also said the proposed expansion of citizenship revocation powers must not create opportunities for political interference, arbitrary decision-making or the targeting of individuals for exercising their democratic rights and freedoms.
The distinction between citizenship acquired by birth and citizenship acquired through an application process required careful constitutional and legal examination to ensure any changes were consistent with the principles of equality, fairness and constitutional protection, the committee said.