UK Supreme Court to Decide on Rwanda Refugee Plan

• UK Supreme Court hears case on sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
• The government defends the plan, citing Rwanda’s ability to treat migrants humanely.
Advertisement
• Critics argue it fails to balance deterrence with legal safeguards.

Lawyers representing the home secretary have asserted to the Supreme Court that Rwanda can be relied upon to handle asylum seekers with care and compassion.

They argued that the Court of Appeal had made an incorrect decision in obstructing the UK government’s initiative to relocate certain asylum seekers to Rwanda, citing concerns about Rwanda’s track record.

They are urging the highest court in the UK to allow the implementation of this scheme, which has been in a state of uncertainty for the past 16 months.

Under this policy, individuals who arrive in the UK without authorization from a safe country and seek asylum, particularly those crossing the English Channel in small boats from France, could be prevented from filing a protection claim in the UK and instead, be sent to Rwanda.

Government ministers contend that this would discourage criminal people-smuggling networks, although this assertion is disputed, and officials estimate that the scheme might be more expensive than dealing with migrants within the UK.

In June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights halted the departure of the initial flight, arguing that British judges needed additional time to thoroughly evaluate the plan’s legality.

This legal battle has now escalated to the Supreme Court, where five of the UK’s most senior lawyers will determine the fate of the scheme.

The government’s legal representatives argue that the Court of Appeal was mistaken in June when it concluded that Rwanda’s asylum system was so flawed that it could send migrants back to their home countries, where they could face mistreatment.

Sir James Eadie KC, representing the home secretary, informed the Supreme Court that there were strong grounds to believe that Rwanda would be committed to making the arrangements work.

He emphasized that Rwanda had significant reputational and financial incentives to treat asylum seekers properly.

Even in the presence of genuine concerns, extensive monitoring measures had been implemented.

The government also proposed having a permanent government official stationed in Kigali to facilitate the implementation of the deal and raise any concerns.

Additionally, independent monitoring of the treatment of each migrant would be carried out. These arrangements, combined with the comprehensive written commitments provided to the UK under the £140 million scheme, were cited as valid reasons for not interfering with the plan from a legal perspective, according to the government’s argument.