A Pakistani who married two women within a four-month period - first an Irish woman and then his first cousin in Pakistan - yesterday secured a High Court order quashing the State's refusal to renew his Irish passport. The State had claimed the Irish marriage was carried out for immigration purposes.
Mr Justice Finnegan held that the Minister for Justice, before deciding to refuse to renew the passport, should have given Mr Sohail Akram, now living in Denmark with his Pakastani wife and their child, an opportunity to comment on a statement which was made to State investigators by his Irish-born wife, Ms Kathleen Kelly, from Loughrea, Co Galway.
In that statement, Ms Kelly said: "The fact that all my relations are Catholics, they did not see it as a proper marriage. As far as that goes, I did not see it as a proper marriage, either. Sohail and I kept living together until 1989 but a normal marriage did not exist. Deep down in my heart, I knew it would not last from the very first day. Sohail made it clear to me that, being a Muslim, he would be entitled to have four wives."
The judge said the Minister for Justice failed to comply with the rules of natural and constitutional justice, which required that Mr Akram should have been given Ms Kelly's statement and permitted to comment on it and adduce such evidence as he might think fit to rebut her comments.
Mr Akram met Ms Kelly when they both worked for a Dublin clothing firm. They married in 1984. In November that year, Mr Akram returned to Pakistan where, he claimed, he came under severe pressure from his family to marry his first cousin, Ms Ansa Butt.
He said he returned to Ireland two weeks after marrying Ms Butt and continued to reside with Ms Kelly. In 1987, he made a declaration of acceptance of Irish citizenship based on his marriage to Ms Kelly. Following the deterioration of that marriage, Mr Akram said they separated in 1990 and he went to Denmark.
In 1993 he applied for Irish citizenship for his son by his second marriage. In order to facilitate the registration process, Mr Akram said he lodged with the Irish embassy in Copenhagen the two marriage certificates. He claimed the embassy had not processed his application, but had retained his Irish passport, which has since expired.
Giving his reserved judgment on Mr Akram's challenge to the decisions to impound his passport and withdraw his citizenship, Mr Justice Finnegan said the Irish embassy became concerned that the marriage to Ms Kelly had been one of convenience. Extensive investigations were undertaken and interviews conducted with Mr Akram, Ms Kelly, her parents, brother and sister.
At the conclusion of these investigations, the Minister for Justice told Mr Akram he was not satisfied that the marriage to Ms Kelly was subsisting at the date of Mr Akram's being granted Irish citizenship in 1987.
The Minister, in deciding whether the requirements of Irish nationality had been complied with, had to observe the rules of natural and constitutional justice, the judge said. Mr Akram should have been given the evidence uncovered which reflected on the validity of the marriage to Ms Kelly.
Mr Justice Finnegan said it was clear the Minister had a concern whether the marriage with Ms Kelly was a sham entered into for the purpose of obtaining Irish citizenship. In any new application, the Minister would consider the question of Mr Akram's marriage to Ms Kelly, he said.