The UK parliament has ultimately approved a contentious bill enabling the government to transfer asylum seekers to Rwanda for their cases to be reviewed by the East African nation.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak faced obstacles from both parliamentary opposition and legal challenges as lawmakers and activists contested the legislation on human rights grounds.
Sunak hailed the bill’s passing, emphasizing its role in deterring vulnerable migrants from risky crossings and dismantling criminal exploitation. He stressed that illegal entry would not guarantee a right to stay.
Nevertheless, the bill’s approval drew criticism from activists and the United Nations, with UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi cautioning against shifting refugee protection responsibilities and setting concerning precedents.
Amnesty International UK condemned the legislation as tarnishing the nation’s moral standing and undermining international legal safeguards for vulnerable populations.
Sunak’s failure to implement the policy has led to significant embarrassment, especially considering the substantial funding allocated to Rwanda, yet yielding no tangible outcomes.
The measure aims to deter irregular migration into the UK, particularly by those traveling on perilous small boats from France, often orchestrated by criminal networks.
The UK encountered a stark reminder of its challenges when news broke on Tuesday morning of five fatalities during an attempted crossing from France to England. A small boat, carrying over 110 passengers, became overcrowded off the coast of Wimereux, northern France, leading to several casualties. According to French officials, the victims included three men, one woman, and one child.
Under the legislation, some individuals arriving in the UK may be redirected to Rwanda for the assessment of their asylum claims. However, flights to Rwanda are not scheduled to depart until mid-July. If their claims are approved, they will remain in Rwanda. Should their claims be rejected, the bill stipulates that Rwanda cannot deport them anywhere other than the UK, though the outcome of such scenarios remains uncertain.
The absence of any deportations thus far, two years after the scheme’s inception, is deemed a significant setback for Sunak, who has prioritized curbing small boat arrivals.
Last year, the UK Supreme Court deemed the policy unlawful, citing substantial concerns regarding the risk of ill-treatment upon removal to Rwanda. The court highlighted the practice of refoulement, where asylum seekers are forcibly returned to a place where they face persecution or danger, contravening international human rights principles. Additionally, the court pointed to Rwanda’s flawed asylum system, poor human rights record, and past failures to comply with non-refoulement agreements, casting doubt on the safety and fairness of asylum claim assessments.
In 2021, the UK government criticized Rwanda for instances of extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, and torture. In response, the government introduced the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in January of this year, effectively designating Rwanda as a safe country under UK law, despite objections from judges.
Home Secretary James Cleverly announced the bill’s passage in Parliament, emphasizing its aim to prevent abuse of human rights claims to block removals and asserting parliamentary sovereignty over European court measures.
Despite its approval, the bill may face legal challenges in the European Court of Human Rights, which has previously halted attempts to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. The legislative process has been drawn out, with the bill subject to amendments and debates between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Although touted as a solution to curb small boat crossings, the policy’s impact on overall migration figures remains minimal. With the looming general election, Sunak’s Conservative Party faces pressure from right-wing factions, including Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, who highlight the issue of illegal migration.
Debates over the UK’s potential departure from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could further complicate matters if deportations are blocked by the European court post-bill passage, exposing divisions within the Conservative Party.
The Rwanda policy has already incurred significant costs for the British government, with estimates reaching £220 million ($274m), potentially rising to £600 million after the initial transfer of 300 individuals to East Africa. This expenditure invites criticism from both left and right-wing factions, questioning the policy’s legality, cost-effectiveness, and efficacy.
The opposition Labour Party, anticipated to win the next general election, has pledged to revoke the policy if it assumes power.
