In a quiet pre-Christmas session of 2024, Ukrainian MPs passed the draft law on multiple citizenship in its first reading. Despite the president’s push to fast-track the bill, it emerged as underdeveloped and fraught with flaws, prompting widespread concern. Nonetheless, these issues were set aside, and the draft was approved in principle, with the expectation of amendments by the second reading to refine the proposal.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has long championed the establishment of a multiple citizenship framework, which has a complex legislative history. Early in his presidency, on 13 December 2019, he registered the “Draft Law on Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine on Citizenship Issues No. 2590” in parliament. However, the bill never progressed past its introduction.
In early 2021, with Zelensky’s support, the National Security and Defence Council tasked the Cabinet of Ministers with drafting a bill addressing dual citizenship. By September, Zelensky personally revived the proposal, advocating for dual citizenship for Ukrainians abroad. In December 2021, just before the full-scale invasion, he submitted draft law No. 6368 to the Verkhovna Rada. Unsurprisingly, the bill was sidelined as the war soon shifted national priorities.
The president’s new draft law, No. 10425, titled “On Certain Issues in the Field of Migration Regarding the Grounds and Procedure for Acquiring and Terminating Ukrainian Citizenship,” was introduced to parliament in January 2024. Although it was initially placed on the agenda, it quickly encountered setbacks. Six months later, a revised version emerged, which, after further revisions, was adopted as a foundational text by parliament on 17 December 2024.
The authors of the new bill, “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine to Ensure the Realisation of the Right to Acquire and Retain Ukrainian Citizenship” (No. 11469), explain that its primary aim is to modernise the legal framework governing Ukrainian citizenship. The draft seeks to protect Ukraine’s national security and interests, strengthen the cohesion of the Ukrainian community, and address the demographic challenges exacerbated by Russia’s military aggression.
The bill includes provisions aimed at facilitating the return of citizens displaced by the war, simplifying the process for acquiring Ukrainian citizenship, and clarifying the legal status of foreign nationals and stateless individuals serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the National Guard, and other military-related organisations.
The document proposes allowing multiple citizenships in specific cases. This includes situations where a child acquires both Ukrainian and another country’s citizenship at birth or when a child already holding Ukrainian citizenship gains the citizenship of their adoptive foreign parents. It also permits the automatic acquisition of another citizenship by a Ukrainian citizen through marriage to a foreign national or due to a foreign country’s citizenship laws, as long as the individual doesn’t formally document their foreign citizenship.
It also further simplifies the process for foreigners from countries on a designated list to acquire Ukrainian citizenship. Similarly, it allows Ukrainian citizens to obtain citizenship from these countries, as their nationals are eligible for expedited Ukrainian citizenship procedures.
Individuals holding Russian citizenship—the state recognised by the Verkhovna Rada as an aggressor—or the citizenship of any country that does not recognise Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty will be barred from holding multiple citizenships.
While the presidential draft law secured the backing of 247 MPs from various political factions—excluding Batkivshchyna and European Solidarity—it quickly faced strong opposition. Some critics accused the law’s authors of attempting to reshape the electoral landscape by allowing people with multiple passports loosely connected to Ukraine and living abroad to vote. Others raised concerns that the bill posed a threat to national security.
Further objections centred on provisions that would strip Ukrainian citizenship from those under occupation who were forcibly given passports by the aggressor state. Certain politicians argued that the principle of multiple citizenships clashed with Ukraine’s Constitution, particularly Article 4, which stipulates that Ukraine recognises only a single citizenship. Activists and civil society groups also warned that the law could undermine Ukrainian identity, threaten national security, and jeopardise citizens’ rights.
Ultimately, the text was promised to be revised with input from all relevant parties, including the Ukrainian World Congress. The Constitutional Court was also approached to assess the proposed law’s alignment with the Constitution. Yevheniya Kravchuk, deputy head of the president’s parliamentary faction, announced the formation of a working group tasked with preparing the document for its second reading. The group, to be chaired by Andriy Motovylovets of the Servant of the People party, would include representatives from various factions.
As of mid-January, according to our sources, the group had yet to meet, though work on refining the draft law was already in progress. MPs had introduced several hundred amendments to the document. The Ukrainian World Congress expressed its gratitude on its official website, commending “Ukrainian parliamentarians for their open, thoughtful, and responsible approach to developing legislation on multiple citizenships and their willingness to engage with civil society.” The Congress also welcomed “the registration in the Verkhovna Rada of a package of proposed amendments to the draft law on multiple citizenships.”
The statement further noted that these amendments, initiated by the UWC and developed in collaboration with MPs Andriy Motovylovets (Servant of the People), Volodymyr Viatrovych (European Solidarity), and Yaroslav Yurchyshyn (Holos), were registered with the signatures of 29 MPs from four parliamentary factions.
What changes are under discussion? As Yaroslav Yurchyshyn explained in a comment to The Ukrainian Week, “Consultations with representatives of the Ukrainian World Congress have helped clarify several points. The law must ensure equal rights for all Ukrainian citizens, regardless of whether they hold other passports. The only exception should be for individuals with citizenship in states that support Russian aggression. For these individuals, restrictions should be imposed, including a ban on participating in state governance or standing for election to central or local government bodies. Additionally, for those wishing to acquire Ukrainian citizenship, I propose a mandatory requirement to demonstrate knowledge of the Constitution, Ukrainian history, and the Ukrainian language.”
“The issue of multiple citizenships has been relevant for a long time,” the MP continued, “but the war has given it new urgency. We have millions of Ukrainians abroad who want to remain part of our country. It is crucial to find a solution that allows them to fully participate in the life of the nation without compromising national security.”
Commenting on the alignment of the draft law on multiple citizenships with the Constitution and the potential for amendments to the country’s fundamental law, Yaroslav Yurchyshyn observes:
“Ukraine has always adhered to the principle of single citizenship, enshrined in Article 4 of the Constitution. This means the state recognises only Ukrainian citizenship, even for those holding other passports. However, multiple citizenship is not explicitly prohibited—the law merely outlines the possible consequences if a Ukrainian voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another state.
That said, there are situations that require further clarification in both the legislation and potentially the Constitution itself. For example, what exactly does ‘single citizenship’ mean? This concept requires either an official interpretation or an update. At this stage, it is essential to provide a clear definition to prevent legal ambiguities and create a coherent framework for citizens.”
The timing of when MPs will turn their attention to the second reading of the draft law and how swiftly it might be adopted remains uncertain. While there are currently no visible developments in parliament, momentum could shift at any moment. Notably, the president is the key proponent of the bill, and the re-emergence of this long-standing proposal during a period of significant geopolitical upheaval is no mere coincidence.
The crucial question remains whether the bill can pass in the form envisaged by Bankova Street and where the line for potential compromises might fall. Critics have been right to highlight both discriminatory undertones in its provisions and a lack of clarity in certain aspects. If crucial amendments are ignored or sidelined, there is a serious risk that, despite the issue’s undeniable importance and relevance, the law may fail to secure enough votes and ultimately be rejected.
