UK Government’s Asylum Plan for Rwanda Ruled Unlawful by Supreme Court

November 16, 2023

The UK government’s controversial asylum plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has been deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. Despite this ruling, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak remains determined to push forward with the policy, which was designed to deter people from arriving in the UK through illegal means. Here is an overview of the key details surrounding this contentious issue:

The Rwanda Asylum Plan

In April 2022, the UK government announced a five-year trial of a plan that would involve sending some asylum seekers to Rwanda to claim asylum there. Under this plan, individuals could be granted refugee status in Rwanda or apply to settle on other grounds. Additionally, they could seek asylum in another “safe third country.” The government stated that anyone entering the UK illegally after January 1, 2022, could be sent to Rwanda, with no limit on numbers.

Rationale for the Plan

The government’s primary objective was to deter individuals from using illegal and dangerous methods, such as small boat crossings across the English Channel, to enter the UK. In 2022, a record-breaking 45,700 people used this route to reach the UK. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had identified “stopping the boats” as a top priority in January.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court found that there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda was a safe country for asylum seekers. The Court expressed concerns that genuine refugees sent to Rwanda could be at risk of being returned to their home countries, where they might face persecution, violating UK and international human rights laws. This violation is known as “refoulement” and is prohibited by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which the UK is a signatory.

The judges also noted that the policy breached safeguards in three British laws passed by Parliament over the past 30 years. They cited Rwanda’s poor human rights record and its past treatment of refugees as factors contributing to their decision.

Government’s Response

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reiterated his commitment to the policy. He announced negotiations for a new treaty with Rwanda to protect against refoulement and suggested that the government might change the law to proceed with the plan. Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick emphasized the importance of flights to Rwanda starting in the spring.

However, legal experts have raised questions about how emergency legislation could declare Rwanda a safe country and whether such a move would breach international law obligations.

Rwanda’s Location and Political Context

Rwanda is a small land-locked country in east-central Africa, located approximately 4,000 miles (6,500 kilometers) southeast of the UK. It shares borders with Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Tanzania, and Uganda. President Paul Kagame, who has been in power for nearly three decades, is seeking a fourth term in 2024. Critics have accused his government of suppressing political opponents, and human rights organizations have highlighted the dangers of opposing the government in Rwanda.

Financial Considerations

The UK government has not provided a total cost for the asylum plan. The plan’s financial aspect involves the difference between the total cost of removing an individual (estimated at £169,000) and the £106,000 spent on housing support if the individual remains in the UK. The latter figure includes a payment of around £105,000 to the third country and £22,000 for flights per person.

The Home Office argued that no cost would be incurred if the policy prevented individuals from entering the UK illegally. Nevertheless, critics contend that the high daily cost of the UK’s asylum system is due to lengthy application processing times and restrictions on asylum seekers’ ability to work while awaiting confirmation of their status.

« Previous Post Next Post »