The UK-Rwanda asylum plan was controversial from the start. Human rights activists globally condemned the plan. Some decried it as “a threat to the welfare of vulnerable people”. The Church of England’s senior bishops have condemned it as an “immoral policy”. The fact that many of the asylum-seekers have refugee status highlights their vulnerability.

On 19 December 2022, a UK high court ruled that it is lawful for the government to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than the UK.

Under the current legislation on asylum claims the UK Home Secretary, currently Suella Braverman, has the power to remove the person to “another safe third country”. The high court found that the Home Secretary succeeded in determining that Rwanda was “a safe third country”.

In addition, the Home Secretary has to decide whether there was anything about the particular circumstances of an asylum seeker which meant that his or her asylum claim should be decided in the United Kingdom. If not, the asylum seeker can be deported.

The judgment is expected to be appealed to the Court of Appeal and possibly the Supreme Court. It is also likely that some asylum-seekers will again appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. There can be no doubt about the UK’s firm intention to remove asylum seekers. Braverman said that removals would go ahead “once the litigation process comes to an end”.  

The UK government has so far paid £140-million to Rwanda as an incentive to ensure Rwanda’s compliance with the agreement.   

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

No refugees have been sent to Rwanda yet. As the first plane transporting refugees was about to take off in June 2022, a last-minute intervention by the European Court of Human Rights prevented the flight. Under the interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights, no individual can be removed to Rwanda “until three weeks after delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings.” Braverman stated that it was her “dream” to have a Rwanda flight depart before Christmas. The dignity of asylum speakers does not seem to matter.

The agreement between the UK and Rwanda states that it gives effect to asylum seekers’ rights under international law, but the Rwanda deportation plan has little to do with international law which protects human dignity as a fundamental human right.

The asylum plan shows the current vulnerability of human rights in the UK. It also shows how a developed democratic country such as the UK is (still) bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and prides itself on a proud history of human rights and civil liberties recognition — stretching all the way back to the Magna Carta — can violate human rights as a matter of policy. Refugees, who in many cases made a treacherous journey to the UK, will now be punished for seeking asylum. 

The issue further shows the importance of the UK remaining a member of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, a court based in Strasbourg. Although the UK is no longer a member of the European Union, it remains a member of the Council of Europe and is therefore still bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK is currently considering withdrawing from the ECHR.

According to Nicola Palmer, Reader at King’s College London, the Rwanda policy reinforces “an exclusionary and isolationist sense” of what it means to be welcome in the UK. The message of the Rwanda agreement is that human rights violations are not violations committed by the “other”; human rights violations are committed in Western democracies and by the same countries that pride themselves as enlightened democracies. If the Rwanda asylum plan goes ahead it will taint the credibility and legitimacy of the UK in both its domestic policies as well as its foreign relations.  DM