British court declares govt’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda unlawful

A British court has declared the government’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda as unlawful. The court of appeal ruling from Lord Burnett, Sir Geoffrey Vos, and Lord Justice Underhill came on Thursday, which refused to consider Rwanda as a “safe third country” where illegal migrants could be sent while their claims are processed.

The ruling is a major setback for the UK government, which last December got the green light from a high court to pursue its Rwanda deportation scheme. However, that ruling stands overturned now. In response, the UK government is expected to approach the country’s Supreme Court.

Following the court's decision, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he respects the decision but“disagreed fundamentally” with its conclusions.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

"I strongly believe the Rwandan government has provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum-seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would be wrongly returned to third countries – something that the Lord Chief Justice agrees with," Sunak said.

“Rwanda is a safe country. The High Court agreed. The UNHCR have their own refugee scheme for Libyan refugees in Rwanda. We will now seek permission to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court," he added.

“The policy of this government is very simple, it is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs. And I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen,” Sunak was quoted as saying by the Independent.

Meanwhile,Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she remained "fully committed" to the policy.

What’s the migration deal with Rwanda?

To deter migrants from crossing the English Channel and embarking on a perilous journey, the UK government and the Rwandan authorities reached a £120 million ($151mn) agreement last April to transport asylum seekers to the African nation while their asylum claims in the UK are processed. Those granted asylum would stay in Rwanda rather than return to the UK, as per the deal.

However, now judges have ruled that Rwanda could not be considered safe for the migrants. The judges concluded, "The result is that the High Court's decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed, and unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum process are corrected, removal of asylum seekers will be unlawful."

What do the critics say?

Those among the critics of the scheme are the UN’s refugee agency UNHCR, lawyers, charities and a group of asylum seekers. They question Rwanda’s human rights credentials while doubting that Home Office would be in a position to ensure that the rights of migrants in the East African nation are protected.
UNHCR told the British court that Rwanda had a record of human rights abuses towards refugees within its borders, including refoulement.

Watch:UK's asylum seekers to be deported

However, Sir James Eadie KC, counsel for the home secretary, Suella Braverman, has dismissed all these concerns, saying that the secretary was confident the government of Rwanda would respect the memorandum of understanding signed by the two nations.

Not a single migrant sent to Rwanda so far

The policy, initially implemented by the Boris Johnson administration and continued by subsequent leaders, aims to address the issue of small boat crossings in the Channel.

Despite its implementation, no individuals have undertaken the journey so far. In June of the previous year, a flight was halted at the last moment due to an appeal made to the European Court of Human Rights.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE