Will Ukrainians holding dual citizenship be able to hold certain positions in government bodies? Analysis of selected provisions of draft law No. 14230

This material was produced as part of the project “Promoting Democratic Integrity and Governance in Ukraine”, implemented by the Civil Network OPORA with the support of the EU. Its content is the sole responsibility of the Civil Network OPORA and does not necessarily reflect the position of the European Union. 

 

On 18 November 2025, Draft Law No. 14230 on amendments to certain legislative acts of Ukraine regarding the specific requirements for holding certain positions in state authorities, other state bodies and local self-government bodies (hereinafter — the draft law) was registered with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. As some provisions of the draft law relate to the scope of activity and expertise of the Civil Network OPORA, we consider it necessary to analyse them.

What is the draft law about?

The drafters of Draft Law No. 14230 justify the need for its adoption by the requirement to properly implement the provisions of the Law of Ukraine of 18 June 2025 No. 4502-IX “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding the Ensuring of the Right to Acquire and Retain Ukrainian Citizenship” (hereinafter referred to as the Law).

The aforementioned Law, which came into force on 16 January 2026, changed approaches to citizenship in Ukraine, in particular by introducing the institution of multiple citizenship. This institution requires further regulatory adjustments to related legal relationships, particularly in the areas of the civil service and public administration. OPORA has analysed this Law in more detail in the article “Frequently Asked Questions on Multiple Citizenship”.

Draft Law No. 14230 aims to regulate specific issues relating to the holding of positions in state authorities, other public bodies and local self-government bodies by Ukrainian citizens who also hold citizenship of a foreign state. The draft law pays particular attention to cases of citizenship of an aggressor state or an occupying state — such situations are viewed through the prism of potential threats to the national security of Ukraine.

The stated aim of the draft law is to establish special restrictions and conditions for access to certain public service positions for Ukrainian citizens with multiple citizenship, taking into account the security context, foreign influence and the need to protect the national interests of the state.

 

Subject matter of legal regulation

The drafters of the draft law propose amending the Electoral Code of Ukraine and 16 laws of Ukraine to introduce restrictions or special legal regulations regarding the holding of certain posts in cases where a Ukrainian citizen holds citizenship (nationality) of a foreign state.

For all categories of posts, the draft law specifically emphasises the possession of citizenship of a state recognised by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine as an aggressor state or an occupying state, viewing this circumstance through the prism of potential threats to the national security of Ukraine.

Ukrainian citizens who hold citizenship of an aggressor state or an occupying state will not be entitled to hold a number of positions specified in the draft law. For example, it is proposed to restrict such individuals’ right to serve as members of electoral commissions, commissions for all-Ukrainian referendums (in particular the Central Electoral Commission), as well as their right to membership of political parties.

However, the draft law provides for an exception for Ukrainian citizens who reside or have resided in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine and acquired Russian Federation citizenship forcibly or automatically, provided they undergo the vetting process prescribed by law.

It is separately stipulated that the verification of the manner of acquiring Russian Federation citizenship, as well as any possible facts of collaboration or aiding the aggressor state, shall be carried out by the Security Service of Ukraine, the National Police and other state bodies in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Such a verification may include, in particular, a psychophysiological examination using a polygraph with the consent of the person concerned.

The table below sets out the list of positions and restrictions subject to special regulation proposed in the draft law.

 

Problematic aspects of the draft law

The conceptual contradiction of the institution of multiple citizenship and the lack of justification for the approaches to applying restrictions

The idea of restricting the rights of persons who legally hold foreign citizenship contradicts the very concept of the institution of multiple citizenship, under which such persons are recognised as citizens of Ukraine with full rights. In other words, contrary to the Constitution, the draft law restricts citizens’ equal rights to public service, employment in local self-government bodies, participation in political parties, and so on.

From 16 January 2026, Ukrainian legislation will permit multiple citizenship (nationality) with certain states, provided they are included in the relevant list approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Accordingly, Ukrainian citizens who have acquired citizenship of such states do not lose their legal ties with Ukraine and continue to be recognised as its citizens with full rights.

For millions of Ukrainian citizens forced to leave the country as a result of the Russian Federation’s full-scale aggression, the institution of multiple citizenship is, above all, a means of maintaining that connection. It makes it possible to regularise their stay abroad, gain access to social rights and employment in their country of residence without losing their rights as Ukrainian citizens.

An additional problematic aspect of the draft law is the fragmented application of the institution of multiple citizenship in the public service sector.

The draft law provides that, for certain categories of positions in the civil service and local self-government bodies, the possession of multiple citizenship, recognised in accordance with the law, is not an absolute ground for restricting access to all positions. It is proposed that citizens holding multiple citizenship be restricted to positions classified as categories one to six in local self-government bodies, as well as positions in categories A, B and C in state bodies whose jurisdiction extends across the entire territory of Ukraine.

However, for other categories of positions, the draft law allows for the possibility of holding them. This approach leads to inequality, as the same circumstance (the legal possession of foreign citizenship) entails different legal consequences depending on the category of the position, without a clear justification for such a distinction.

Restrictions on access to certain positions in the civil service for individuals holding foreign citizenship may be justified on grounds of safeguarding national security and minimising the risks of foreign influence. At the same time, such restrictions must comply with the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and equality of citizens’ rights, and must be clearly justified and understandable to the public. In this context, one can refer to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tănase v. Moldova (2010), which found that the prohibition on a person with Romanian citizenship standing for election following Moldova’s legalisation of multiple citizenship constituted a violation of Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to free elections.

Given this, a functional approach appears appropriate, whereby restrictions are applied not to all categories of positions without exception, but only to those involving work with restricted-access information, related to decision-making in matters of defence, security and foreign policy, or which are otherwise at increased risk of influence by foreign states. It is proposed that this approach be applied in the civil service and local self-government bodies, where the draft law allows for the possibility of persons with multiple citizenship, recognised in accordance with the law, holding certain positions.

At the same time, for other areas of public activities, such as participation in electoral commissions, the activities of political parties, or other forms of civic and political participation, the draft law requires a clear justification of the necessity of such restrictions, provided that general restrictions remain in place. Applying restrictions with identical implications to fundamentally different roles creates a risk of excessive interference in the exercise of citizens’ political rights.

Of particular concern is the issue of participation in electoral commissions, which are formed within tight deadlines and involve the involvement of hundreds of thousands of people. Excluding people with foreign citizenship may not only have a limited security effect but also practically complicate the organisation of the electoral process.

Given the introduction of multiple citizenship with certain states, the absence of a unified, logically structured and functionally justified approach to the application of restrictions may lead to an unjustified narrowing of the rights of certain categories of citizens and call into question the compliance of such restrictions with the principles of equality and proportionality.

 

Issues related to the practical application of restrictions on the right to participate in electoral commissions, commissions for all-Ukrainian referendums, including the Central Election Commission

In accordance with Article 38 of the Constitution of Ukraine, citizens have the right to participate in the management of state affairs, to elect and be elected to state authorities and local self-government bodies. This right is one of the fundamental political rights of citizens and constitutes one of the key guarantees of popular sovereignty and the democratic system. Furthermore, Article 9 of the Electoral Code of Ukraine explicitly includes the right to be a member of an electoral commission among the rights of voters to participate in the electoral process, which are linked to the voting right. This legislative framework covers all levels of electoral administration, including precinct, district and territorial electoral commissions, the Central Electoral Commission, as well as commissions for all-Ukrainian referendums, and confirms that participation in these bodies is a form of exercising electoral rights, rather than merely an organisational or personnel function.

The fact that a Ukrainian citizen holds the nationality of a state recognised by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine as an aggressor state or an occupying state may constitute a legitimate aim for restricting his or her participation in the electoral process in order to protect national security and the democratic order. At the same time, such a legitimate aim does not relieve the legislator of the obligation to ensure clear criteria for the application of restrictions, adequate procedural safeguards and an individualised approach, particularly when it comes to electoral rights, where any state intervention may have a disproportionate impact on confidence in the elections and their legitimacy.

The restriction proposed in Draft Law No. 14230 is broad and automatic, and takes no account of the nature of the duties performed by members of electoral commissions at various levels, their level of access to sensitive information, or the possibility of applying less restrictive alternatives. Similar to the case of right to stand for election, as highlighted by the European Court of Human Rights in the aforementioned case of Tănase v. Moldova, the exclusion of entire categories of citizens from the electoral process on the basis of the formal criterion of citizenship without an individualised assessment creates a risk of disproportionate interference with electoral rights and does not meet the standards of democratic governance.

A separate threat is posed by the absence of effective and transparent mechanisms for establishing the fact of citizenship of the aggressor state and the nature of its acquisition. Given the practice of the Russian Federation of granting citizenship forcibly or automatically in the temporarily occupied territories, there is a risk that such citizenship may be granted to a person against their will or even without their knowledge. In the absence of judicial oversight and clear verification procedures, the draft law could create conditions for the manipulative use of unverified information as a tool to interfere in the formation of election commissions, the Central Election Commission and commissions for the all-Ukrainian referendum, which could directly affect the exercise of the electoral rights of Ukrainian citizens and the legitimacy of the elections as a whole.

Another problem with the draft law is that it cannot be applied in practice to members of electoral commissions during elections and referendums due to the short timeframe of the electoral process, which is fast-moving and strictly time-bound. Thus, according to the Electoral Code of Ukraine, during local elections, the territorial electoral commission has only 9 days to form the composition of precinct electoral commissions after the deadline for submitting nominations by nominating bodies has passed. At the same time, 29,284 precinct election commissions were formed for the 2020 local elections, comprising hundreds of thousands of people.

Under such conditions, it is extremely difficult to effectively implement the requirement to verify whether a person holds citizenship of another state. Current legislation does not provide for an operational mechanism to verify foreign citizenship, and electoral commissions are not vested with the relevant powers or access to information from foreign states.

Furthermore, in the event of Russian citizenship being identified, the draft law stipulates the need to establish the nature of its acquisition — whether voluntary or forced. In addition, the draft law provides for such verification to be carried out through a psychophysiological examination using a polygraph, subject to the individual’s consent; failure to provide such consent is deemed a refusal to undergo the verification. Such a verification is complex by its very nature, requires the involvement of law enforcement agencies and a significant amount of time, which is objectively incompatible with the timelines of the electoral process.

Consequently, there is a high risk that the proposed restrictions will be merely declaratory and cannot be implemented in practice, or that their application will be selective, which runs counter to the principles of equality and impartiality in the electoral process.

Reservations regarding restrictions on the right to participate in political parties

Article 36 of the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees Ukrainian citizens the right to freedom of association in political parties and stipulates that only Ukrainian citizens may be members of political parties. At the same time, the use of the formulation “only citizens of Ukraine” in this provision is intended to exclude foreigners and stateless persons from membership and does not in itself alter the constitutional status of a citizen of Ukraine, who, even if holding foreign citizenship, remains a citizen of Ukraine within the meaning of the Constitution.

Moreover, as already noted, the logic of the proposed amendments to the legislation regarding multiple citizenship provides for the existence of a list of states, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers, the citizenship of which a citizen of Ukraine may legally hold. This further confirms that such a person retains the full scope of the legal status of a citizen of Ukraine.

Under such circumstances, the introduction of a legislative ban on membership of political parties for Ukrainian citizens based on the fact of holding foreign citizenship may restrict the right to freedom of association by narrowing the scope of this right, which, in accordance with Article 22(3) of the Constitution of Ukraine, is not permitted.

 

The lack of an effective mechanism for identifying and reporting dual citizenship

One of the key problematic aspects of draft law No. 14230 is the lack of a clear and effective mechanism for identifying, verifying and reporting cases where Ukrainian citizens hold citizenship (nationality) of another state. This also applies to the establishment of foreign citizenship as grounds for dismissal or early termination of the powers of officials in a number of bodies. The identification of such circumstances is possible primarily in three cases: voluntary disclosure by the individual, the existence of a court judgement, or the conduct of a verification within the framework of criminal proceedings at the request of law enforcement agencies.

In this context, draft law No. 14230 formally establishes requirements and restrictions relating to the holding of foreign citizenship, but does not create procedural mechanisms that would allow the relevant authorities to effectively verify and ensure compliance with them. This creates a risk of selective application of the rules and unequal treatment in similar legal situations, and also reduces the practical implementation of the proposed provisions to a declaratory level.

 

The use of a polygraph as the definitive basis for legal restrictions

Draft Law No. 14230, for certain categories of public service posts, in addition to verifying the manner in which Ukrainian citizens who resided or reside in the temporarily occupied territory acquired Russian Federation citizenship, also provides for the possibility of verifying collaboration and aiding the aggressor state.

At the same time, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the facts of collaboration (Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), treason (Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) or aiding an aggressor state (Article 111-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) may be established exclusively by a court within the framework of criminal proceedings.

The use of psychophysiological examination involving the use of a polygraph cannot be regarded as an appropriate or sufficient means of establishing the facts of collaboration or aiding an aggressor state.

A polygraph may only be used as an auxiliary tool within the framework of operational and investigative activities. It does not establish the legal fact of the commission of a criminal offence. In the absence of a court conviction, any conclusions regarding collaboration or aiding an aggressor state cannot automatically entail legal restrictions.

Furthermore, the possibility of law enforcement agencies applying such verifications to a wide range of individuals creates risks of excessive discretion and potential abuse.

 

The implicit mandatory nature of the procedure: the polygraph as a condition for exercising political rights

Concerns are also raised by the mandatory nature of such verifications, as the draft law effectively stipulates that undergoing such a verification is a prerequisite for becoming a member of an electoral commission or a political party. The draft law states that the verification is carried out to establish the manner in which citizenship of another state was acquired, and to determine whether there has been any collaboration with or aiding of the aggressor state; this task is entrusted to the Security Service of Ukraine, the National Police and other state bodies in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. At the same time, the exercise of the relevant rights is effectively made conditional upon passing this test.

Furthermore, it is stipulated that such a test includes, in particular, a psychophysiological examination using a polygraph with the person’s consent, and refusal to consent to the polygraph test is deemed a refusal to undergo the test as a whole. Thus, although the polygraph is formally declared to be voluntary (with consent), the legal consequences of refusing to undergo it are effectively equivalent to the impossibility of exercising the relevant right. In essence, this amounts to the introduction of an indirect obligation to undergo a polygraph test as a condition for access to political participation.

It should be noted that in national law enforcement practice, psychophysiological examinations using a polygraph are used only as an auxiliary tool and, as a rule, in narrowly defined areas, in particular in cases related to access to state secrets or service in certain bodies of the security and defence sector. However, even in such cases, the results of the examination do not have independent evidential value and cannot serve as the sole basis for restricting a person’s rights.

The proposed regulation, however, shifts this instrument into the realm of the exercise of political rights, effectively making it a decisive factor in access to membership of electoral commissions and political parties. This creates the risk that a formally voluntary procedure will de facto become a mandatory condition for the exercise of constitutional rights, which may be regarded as a disproportionate interference with the freedom of political activity and requires substantial revision in terms of the clarity of the scope of application, procedural safeguards and the possibility of using less restrictive alternatives.

 

Uncertainty regarding the scope of entities authorised to use polygraphs and the implementation mechanism

The draft law provides that the verification of the manner of acquiring Russian Federation citizenship, as well as any possible facts of collaboration or aiding the aggressor state, shall be carried out by the Security Service of Ukraine, the National Police and other state bodies in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

The wording of the law proposed in the draft law contains significant legal uncertainty regarding both the entities conducting the verification and the procedure for carrying it out.

Firstly, the wording “…carried out by the Security Service of Ukraine, the National Police and other state bodies in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine” does not make it clear whether the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is to establish a single procedure for conducting verifications for all bodies, including the Security Service of Ukraine and the National Police, or whether such a procedure applies exclusively to “other state bodies”, whilst the Security Service of Ukraine and the National Police are to act in accordance with their own procedures. The lack of a clear distinction gives rise to various possible interpretations of the provision and creates a risk of arbitrary determination of verification procedures at the sub-legislative level.

Secondly, the draft law does not clarify the meaning of the term “other state bodies”. The provision does not contain a list of such bodies or criteria for their identification. Combined with the delegation of powers to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to determine the procedure for verification, this creates a situation in which the range of bodies authorised to conduct polygraph tests could effectively be determined by an executive authority act.

 

Conclusions

Draft Law No. 14230 contains significant shortcomings, in particular regarding the potential unconstitutionality of provisions restricting political participation, as well as a fragmentary and inconsistent approach to the implications of multiple citizenship, general and automatic restrictions on participation in electoral commissions and political parties without proper functional justification, and uncertainty regarding the mechanisms for establishing foreign citizenship and the procedure for verification. Taken together, all this creates risks of disproportionate interference in the exercise of political rights and the selective application of the law in practice.