The High Court in Nairobi has ordered immigration authorities to return the Kenyan passport of East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) Member of Parliament Abdirahman Bashir Shariff, after he challenged his alleged detention at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, denial of entry into Kenya and removal to Somalia.
Justice David Mburu directed the respondents to release and return Shariff’s passport to him or his advocates within 24 hours of being served with the order. The passport, number CK114667, was issued on January 16, 2023, and is valid until January 15, 2033.
The order is an interim measure. The court has not yet made a final determination on whether the actions by immigration officials were unlawful or whether Shariff’s constitutional rights were violated. The substantive petition will continue to be heard.
What happened at JKIA?
Shariff says the dispute began on August 14, 2026, when he arrived at JKIA on a flight from Mogadishu.
According to court documents, immigration officers questioned him about his Somali citizenship. Shariff says he was taken away from the immigration hall and detained before officials questioned the validity of his Kenyan citizenship.
He alleges that officers initially told him he was not Kenyan and had obtained his Kenyan passport unlawfully. He says the explanation later changed, with officials instead alleging that he had failed to declare his dual citizenship.
Shariff maintains that he told the officials that his declaration of dual citizenship had already been captured in the immigration system. According to his petition, however, officials insisted that he produce a physical copy of the declaration.
He says his passport was then seized, he was prevented from passing through the immigration barrier and he was eventually placed on a flight back to Mogadishu.
Shariff further alleges that he was not given written reasons for his detention, refusal of entry, removal or seizure of his passport.
The government respondents have yet to give their full response to the allegations in the proceedings reported so far.
Who is Abdirahman Bashir Shariff?
Shariff is an elected member of the East African Legislative Assembly representing Somalia.
The official EALA record lists him among the members elected from Somalia in the Assembly’s current term. In March 2026, EALA announced that Shariff was among nine members elected from Somalia who took their oaths of office in Arusha.
His position as a regional legislator adds an international dimension to the dispute because, according to his lawyers, he needs to travel within the East African Community and internationally in the performance of his parliamentary duties.
Shariff’s lawyers have also told the court that he is a Kenyan citizen by birth.
According to his petition, he was born in Waberi, Garissa District, on February 1, 1986, to Kenyan parents. He says Kenya has recognised his citizenship for more than two decades and that he was issued a Kenyan national identity card in September 2005 before receiving the passport that was later seized at JKIA.
These are assertions contained in the petition and have yet to be finally determined by the court.
The constitutional question over dual citizenship
At the heart of the case is Kenya’s constitutional treatment of dual citizenship.
Article 16 of the Constitution states that a citizen by birth does not lose Kenyan citizenship by acquiring citizenship of another country.
The Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act reinforces that position. Section 8(1) provides that a Kenyan citizen by birth who acquires another country’s citizenship is entitled to retain Kenyan citizenship, subject to the law and constitutional limitations.
The Act also states that a dual citizen is entitled to a Kenyan passport and other travel documents, subject to applicable limitations.
That legal framework is central to Shariff’s case.
His argument is that acquiring Somali citizenship did not automatically terminate his Kenyan citizenship because he says he is Kenyan by birth.
He has therefore invoked Article 16 to challenge the treatment he says he received at JKIA.
But dual citizens also have a disclosure obligation
Kenyan law does impose obligations on people who hold dual citizenship.
Section 8(3) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act requires a dual citizen to disclose their other citizenship in the prescribed manner within three months of becoming a dual citizen. The government immigration service currently provides an online process for making that declaration.
Shariff’s case turns partly on whether that requirement was complied with and, crucially, what legal consequences could follow from the circumstances alleged at JKIA.
Shariff says he had already declared his Somali citizenship and that the information was available in the government’s electronic system.
The immigration authorities’ response to that claim will be important as the case progresses.
The significance of Article 39
Shariff is also relying on Article 39(3) of the Constitution, which provides that every Kenyan citizen has the right to enter, remain in and reside anywhere in Kenya.
He argues that, as a Kenyan citizen by birth, he could not lawfully be denied entry into the country and returned to Somalia in the circumstances he describes.
Kenyan courts have previously recognised the distinction between the movement rights of citizens and those of foreign nationals.
In a 2023 decision, the High Court noted that Article 39(3) reserves the right to enter, remain in and reside anywhere in Kenya to citizens, while foreign nationals’ entry and residence are governed by immigration law.
The constitutional question in Shariff’s case will therefore depend significantly on whether he is established as a Kenyan citizen by birth and how the immigration authorities’ actions are legally characterised.
A legal background on dual citizenship
Kenya’s current constitutional framework deliberately permits dual citizenship for citizens by birth.
Kenya Law records that Article 16 of the 2010 Constitution changed the position that existed under the former constitutional order. The Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act subsequently provided the statutory framework for dual citizens, including their entitlement to Kenyan passports.
The courts have also previously dealt with disputes involving Kenyan citizens who acquired another nationality.
In Ndegwa v Attorney General & another, decided in 2024, the High Court considered a challenge to the criminal penalty attached to failure to disclose dual citizenship. The court found the punishment under Section 8(4) unconstitutional, describing it as an unreasonable and unjustifiable limitation on rights associated with dual citizenship and freedom of movement.
That judgment is relevant background, although it does not determine the specific facts of Shariff’s case.
What Shariff wants from the court
The passport-return order is only one part of the wider petition.
Shariff is asking the court to address the legality of his alleged detention, denial of entry and removal from Kenya. He is also seeking damages for what he describes as financial losses, separation from his family and other prejudice resulting from the incident.
He has also asked the court to preserve and release records relating to the incident, including immigration records and other material that could establish what happened at JKIA.
His legal team argues that the State could not treat him as a foreign national subject to removal if he was, as he maintains, a Kenyan citizen by birth.
The passport itself
The passport at the centre of the dispute is particularly important to Shariff because he says it contains a valid United States visa.
According to his petition, he intended to use the visa to travel to the United States to visit family. He argues that the continued withholding of the passport is causing the visa to lose its practical value.
The High Court’s order therefore provides him with an immediate remedy while the larger case proceeds.
The judge directed that the passport be returned intact and unaltered.
What happens next?
Justice Mburu has directed the respondents to file their responses within seven days. Shariff will then have an opportunity to file a rejoinder and written submissions, followed by submissions from the respondents.
The case is scheduled to return to court on October 14, 2026, for confirmation of compliance and further directions.
That means the September 29 order should not be interpreted as a final ruling on the dispute.
For now, the court has ordered the government to return Shariff’s Kenyan passport while the substantive constitutional questions remain before it.
Those questions include whether Shariff’s Kenyan citizenship by birth remains valid despite his Somali citizenship, whether he properly complied with the statutory dual-citizenship disclosure requirements, whether immigration officials lawfully denied him entry, and whether the State followed the required procedures before detaining and removing him.
The answers could have implications beyond one passport dispute.
Kenya’s Constitution expressly recognises dual citizenship, while the Citizenship and Immigration Act establishes both rights and obligations for dual nationals. Shariff’s case places those provisions against a particularly unusual set of circumstances: a Kenyan-born citizen, who is also a Somali national and a serving EALA legislator representing Somalia, says he was stopped at Kenya’s main international airport and sent back to Somalia despite holding a valid Kenyan passport.
