Supreme Court Rules Against UK’s Plan To Send Asylum Seekers To Rwanda

The supreme court in the UK has ruled against the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, describing it as unlawful.

The move was designed to deter people from migrating to the UK illegally through small boats.

In a ruling on Wednesday, Robert Reed, presiding judge, said there were substantial grounds to believe that genuine refugees sent to the country could be at risk of being returned to countries from which they have fled.

Reed said the principle of not sending refugees back to their home countries, if they would be subject to a real risk of abuse, is embedded in British laws.

“There is a legal rule that refugees must not be returned to their country of origin if their lives would be threatened in that country,” he said.

The judge said Rwanda has a poor human rights record, adding that the UK police have had to warn claimants of threats to kill them.

He also added that there are concerns about media and political freedom in Rwanda, questioning the East African country’s compliance with international obligations.

THE UK-RWANDA SAGA

In April 2022, Britain and Rwanda signed a deal to send some migrants who arrive in the UK as stowaways across the English Channel to the East African country, where their asylum claims would be processed.

Those granted asylum would stay in Rwanda rather than returning to the UK.

But no one has been sent to Rwanda as opposition politicians, refugee groups, and human rights organisations have argued in courts that the plan is unethical and unworkable.

The first flight was scheduled to go in June 2022, but was cancelled when the European court of human rights intervened.

In December 2022, the high court in London ruled that the Rwanda plan was legal, but that the government must consider the individual circumstances of each case before putting anyone on a plane.

However, in June this year, the appeal court backed a challenge by asylum-seekers from countries including Syria, Vietnam and Iran.

The court ruled that the plan was unlawful because Rwanda is not a “safe third country” and there was a risk that migrants sent there would be returned to the home countries they had fled.