The Bahraini Council of Representatives has unanimously voted to strip three of its members of their parliamentary seats, a move that underscores the tightening grip of national security imperatives over legislative immunity in the kingdom. The decision, reached during an extraordinary session, removes Abdulnabi Salman, Mamdouh Al-Saleh, and Mahdi Al-Shwaikh from office following their criticism of the government’s practice of stripping citizenships from individuals accused of praising Iranian attacks.
The expulsions are particularly striking because they occurred despite a formal apology issued by the three lawmakers to King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and the Bahraini people. In their statement, the MPs had explicitly rejected foreign aggression and declared their support for state measures against those who “betrayed the homeland.” However, for the parliamentary majority, an apology was insufficient to erase what they characterized as a breach of national duty during a period of acute regional volatility.
This development signals a precarious moment for Bahrain’s legislative body, reflecting a broader trend across the Gulf where the line between political dissent and threats to national security is increasingly blurred. By utilizing constitutional mechanisms to purge members who questioned the legality of state procedures, the Council has sent a clear message: loyalty to the crown’s security apparatus is a non-negotiable prerequisite for parliamentary service.
The Constitutional Mechanism of Expulsion
The legal basis for the removal of the three MPs rests on Article 99 of the Bahraini Constitution, which allows for the stripping of a member’s seat if they lose “trust and consideration” or fail to fulfill the duties of their membership. In this instance, the request for expulsion was signed by 37 lawmakers, who argued that the MPs’ interventions during a session on judicial powers constituted a “glorification of Iranian attacks.”
According to former MP Mohammed Khalifa Bouhammud, the decision was not a matter of simple political disagreement but a response to statements that crossed into the realm of national sovereignty. Bouhammud noted that the Council relied on a combination of Article 99 and internal bylaws—specifically Article 191(w)—which regulate disciplinary sanctions for behavior deemed detrimental to the national interest or the dignity of the legislative institution.
The controversy began when the lawmakers questioned the mechanism by which citizenships were being revoked. While some did not oppose the principle of stripping citizenship for treason, they argued that the process was being carried out outside established legal frameworks. Others highlighted the “unfairness” of “derivative stripping,” where the family members of an accused person also lose their nationality.
Profiles of the Ousted Lawmakers
The three men removed from the Council represent different facets of the Bahraini political spectrum, suggesting that the crackdown is not limited to a single ideological camp.
| Member | Previous Role/Affiliation | Political Profile |
|---|---|---|
| Abdulnabi Salman | First Deputy Speaker | Linked to the leftist/nationalist “Progressive Forum”; a prominent critic of government policy. |
| Mamdouh Al-Saleh | Head of Parliamentary Services Committee | Focused on social and service-based issues; maintains strong ties to Shia grassroots. |
| Mahdi Al-Shwaikh | Member of Parliament | Generally viewed as working within the official parliamentary framework rather than traditional opposition. |
A Clash of Interpretations: Security vs. Sovereignty
The expulsion has sparked a sharp divide between state loyalists and human rights advocates regarding the nature of parliamentary freedom in Bahrain. For proponents of the decision, the move was a necessary act of “national alignment.” Bouhammud argued that freedom of expression cannot be absolute when it intersects with national security, asserting that the Council wanted to establish a “red line” regarding external threats.
Conversely, rights monitors view the move as an arbitrary use of vague terminology to silence independence. Niko Jaffarnia, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, pointed out that terms like “loss of trust” and “national security” lack clear legal definitions in Bahraini law, making them tools for political convenience. Jaffarnia questioned the highly utility of a parliament if its members are only permitted to vote and speak in accordance with the King’s expectations, suggesting that such a climate renders the institution a mere formality.
Sayed Ahmed Al-Wadaei of the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy echoed these concerns, arguing that the requirement for a public apology followed by expulsion proves that “absolute obedience” is the only path to political survival. He noted that the use of citizenship as a tool for political punishment creates a climate of fear that extends beyond the walls of parliament.
The Regional Context of ‘Political Citizenship’
Bahrain’s actions are not happening in isolation. Across the GCC, particularly in Bahrain and Kuwait, there has been a documented increase in the revocation of citizenships for political reasons. This trend is closely tied to the heightened sensitivity of Gulf monarchies toward any discourse perceived as lenient toward Iran or inconsistent with internal security narratives.
In these contexts, citizenship is increasingly treated not as an inherent right, but as a conditional privilege granted by the state in exchange for political loyalty. When lawmakers—who are tasked with overseeing the executive branch—challenge these practices, they find themselves vulnerable to the same tools of state power they were attempting to critique.
While Bouhammud maintains that there is no direct legal link between the loss of a parliamentary seat and the subsequent loss of citizenship, rights advocates warn that the former often serves as a precursor to the latter, marking the individual as an enemy of the state.
The next critical checkpoint for the Bahraini legislature will be the upcoming sessions of the sixth legislative term, where the remaining members will likely face increased pressure to maintain a unified front on security legislation. Whether this purge leads to a more compliant parliament or further erodes the institution’s legitimacy remains a central question for observers of the kingdom’s political trajectory.
We invite our readers to share their perspectives on the balance between national security and legislative immunity in the comments below.
Disclaimer: This article discusses legal and constitutional procedures in the Kingdom of Bahrain and is provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.
