A sensitive legal and diplomatic case is currently pitting Canadian authorities against those of Ivory Coast regarding Blessing Dugbeh , a resident of Sherbrooke (Quebec, Canada) who is subject to an expulsion order for serious crimes.

Blessing Dugbeh, 28, was convicted in Canada of serious sexual offences against minors . Living with HIV, he had his permanent residency revoked by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) , which issued a removal order to his presumed country of origin.

However, the execution of this deportation faces a major diplomatic obstacle. The Ivorian embassy in Ottawa disputes Dugbeh's Ivorian nationality , arguing that his parentage and place of birth are insufficient to officially recognize him as an Ivorian citizen.

According to Ambassador Bafetigue Ouattara , Dugbeh was born in Ivory Coast to a mother originally from Liberia, who was then a refugee on Ivorian territory, which would complicate the granting of nationality according to Ivorian legislation.

For his part, Dugbeh's lawyer, Emmanuel Kamonyo , maintains that his client was born in Ivory Coast and should be considered an Ivorian citizen. This difference of opinion is currently hindering the consular cooperation necessary for his deportation, leaving Dugbeh in a complex legal situation in Canada.

Canadian authorities have indicated that a country's refusal to recognize an individual as a citizen does not automatically suspend a deportation order. The CBSA reiterates that the removal order remains valid, even if the country of origin fails to cooperate, potentially leading to lengthy proceedings in Canadian courts to resolve the issue of nationality.

This case highlights the grey areas of international law and consular cooperation , particularly when a person finds themselves at the crossroads of divergent jurisdictions and complex rules on nationality and the enforcement of expulsion measures.

It also raises debates about how countries coordinate their efforts to manage cases of disputed nationals, while respecting human rights and international obligations.



The case remains to be followed, as it could set an important precedent for the treatment of people whose nationality is disputed in international deportation proceedings.