A public administration expert has stated that MP Víðir Reynisson violated administrative law by intervening in a deportation case. Víðir had informed immigration authorities that 17-year-old Oscar Bocanegra would likely receive citizenship, leading to a postponed deportation.
A “personal decision”
Víðir Reynisson, MP for the Social Democratic Alliance and chair of the Judicial Affairs and Education Committee, told Vísir earlier this week that contacting the Directorate of Immigration regarding 17-year-old Oscar Bocanegra from Colombia was a personal decision.
Oscar, who lives with a foster family in Iceland, was set to be deported last Tuesday—but the removal was postponed after Víðir informed the agency there was an “overwhelming likelihood” that Parliament would grant Oscar citizenship in the coming weeks.
Víðir told Vísir on Tuesday that proceeding with the deportation would be an irresponsible use of public funds and unfair to the individual.
Administrative law expert criticises the decision
In an interview on the radio programme Reykjavík síðdegis published earlier today, public administration expert Haukur Arnþórsson stated that Víðir Reynisson broke administrative rules by intervening in Oscar’s case, calling it another example of MPs using unlawful means to gain popularity.
Haukur added that the case reflects badly on public governance. “This is not a political matter. It’s meaningless to go to the media and say: ‘I’m making a political decision.’ This is an administrative matter,” Haukur stated.
When asked whether it was appropriate for Víðir to act according to his conscience by sending an email, Haukur responded: “No, he had no right to send that email. This violates the constitutional order. No politician has the right to interfere in the actions of the executive branch,” Haukur said.
He warned that Víðir’s actions could be more serious than they appeared.
When asked if it wasn’t appropriate for Víðir to act according to his conscience, as Víðir stated he did, Haukur replied: “That’s relevant in political matters, but this isn’t a political matter—that’s where he’s wrong. This is purely an administrative issue.”
Power deliberately shifted away from ministers
Haukur noted that power has been deliberately shifted away from ministers to prevent arbitrary decisions, with independent appeals boards now handling complaints.
“You can’t appeal cases to ministers anymore. They are appealed to administrative boards,” Haukur told Reykjavík síðdegis. “This case goes to the Directorate of Immigration, then to the Immigration Appeals Board, and if necessary, to the courts. It never goes to Parliament—Parliament only makes the laws governing the process. Violating the separation of powers is a serious matter.”
Haukur also argued that prioritising one individual among nineteen facing deportation violates the principle of equal treatment: “Víðir is not allowed to make administrative decisions like this.”
When the interviewer pointed out that this was not the first time an MP intervened in such a manner, Haukur agreed.
“Yes, there have been several such cases. Svandís Svavarsdóttir also imposed a ban on whaling, which was unlawful. There are numerous examples of MPs buying popularity through illegal means.”
When asked what consequences Víðir’s actions would have, Haukur concluded by saying: “Likely none.”
