The UK Supreme Court has ruled against the British government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, deeming it unlawful. The controversial move, aimed at deterring illegal migration to the UK through small boats, faced opposition on ethical and practical grounds. The court’s presiding judge, Robert Reed, stated that there were substantial grounds to believe that genuine refugees sent to Rwanda might face a risk of being returned to countries from which they fled, violating the principle of not sending refugees back to their home countries if their lives are at risk.
Reed emphasized the legal rule embedded in British laws that prohibits the return of refugees to their country of origin if they face a real risk of abuse. The judge highlighted concerns about Rwanda’s human rights record, noting that the UK police had warned claimants of threats to kill them. Additionally, there were apprehensions about media and political freedom in Rwanda, raising questions about the country’s compliance with international obligations.
The UK-Rwanda deal, signed in April 2022, aimed to send migrants who arrived in the UK as stowaways across the English Channel to Rwanda for processing their asylum claims. Those granted asylum would stay in Rwanda instead of returning to the UK. The plan faced opposition from various quarters, leading to legal challenges and court rulings. The Supreme Court’s decision further underscores the ethical and legal complexities surrounding efforts to address migration challenges through such agreements.
