'An Illegal Deal': How a British Court Blocked a Plan to Deport Asylum Seekers to Rwanda

The Court of Appeal in the capital, London, ruled to reject the Tory government’s plan to deport asylum seekers and migrants arriving in its territory to Rwanda, describing the proposed plan as illegal, which represents a heavy blow to the controversial immigration policies supported by some British ministers.

With this ruling, which was upheld by three judges from the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court’s decision that previously ruled that Rwanda could be considered a safe third country to send refugees to is annulled.

With the Sunak government under increasing pressure over its policy of deporting refugees to Rwanda, Home Secretary Suella Braverman criticized what she called the regime’s manipulation of the British people.

On the other hand, human rights activists welcomed the court’s ruling and criticized the Tory government’s policy of deporting asylum seekers and migrants to Rwanda, describing it as immoral and ineffective.

Critics pointed out that the British government’s policies are aimed at mobilizing political support and will not solve the basic problems, noting that there are currently no legal paths for most of those fleeing war or persecution to apply for asylum to enter the kingdom and therefore many of them see that boarding dangerous small boats is the only option.

The Daily Mail newspaper predicted that the issue of migration and human rights would dominate the British political arena in the run-up to the upcoming elections.

 

Illegal Plan

Sunak’s pledge to stop asylum seekers arriving in small boats across the English Channel faced a major setback when an appeals court ruled last week that his plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was illegal.

Critics say this policy is inhumane and will not succeed, but Sunak said the British government would seek to challenge the court’s decision, as reported by Reuters.

“I respect the court, but I fundamentally disagree with its decision. Rwanda is a safe country. We will now seek permission to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court,” he added in a statement.

The ruling represents a major blow to Sunak, who is facing pressure from his party and citizens to deal with the growing numbers of asylum seekers and immigrants, whose absorption costs the state about 3 billion pounds annually.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had issued a last-minute decision blocking the planned first flight to deport asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda last year, and ordered to prevent the deportation of any asylum seeker until the end of the judicial procedures in the United Kingdom.

The High Court in London had ruled in December on the legality of the deportation policy, but a number of asylum seekers from several countries—such as Syria, Iraq, and Iran—and human rights organizations challenged the decision.

Asylum Aid, who brought the case along with ten individual asylum seekers, said the ruling is a vindication of the rule of law and basic fairness.

The summary of the Court of Appeal ruling issued on June 29, 2023, stated that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would violate the ECHR.

The text of the ruling stated that there is a real danger in deporting refugees to Rwanda, as they may be returned to their countries of origin from which they fled due to persecution and other forms of inhumane treatment, as they have the right to obtain asylum.

Although the ruling of June 29 does not deem the policy of the British government wholly illegal, it does impede its ability to send anyone to Rwanda, having provided so much money to the Rwandan government for this purpose.

On the other hand, the Rwandan government also objected to the ruling, adding that Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world.

The BBC reported that the UK paid the Rwandan government 140 million pounds sterling to send tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrive illegally on a one-way trip to the East African country, which represents a great political embarrassment for Sunak and his government.

However, this ruling could be exploited in favor of Sunak—who was not elected by the public but rather was given the position by his party MPs via special mandate—in the upcoming general elections.

With the conservatives’ weak support for him at the present time and his need to maintain the support of his party, Sunak may use this decision as a main launching pad for his upcoming election manifesto, which may amount to a demand to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In this context, Tory MPs, including former ministers Sir Edward Leigh and Mark Francois, have floated the idea that the UK should seek to disavow ECHR in order to facilitate efforts to deport migrants.

 

Government Insistence

In the same vein, most Downing Street officials said they would remain committed to their Rwanda policy and still believe it is the right approach despite the Court of Appeal ruling.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said the government will look carefully at the issues raised in the judgment and agreed the policy could be toughened up to provide further assurances that migrants flown to the country would not be sent back home.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has issued a statement on the High Court’s ruling just now, confirming the government plans to appeal the judgment.

But the Liberal Democrats urged Braverman to accept reality about the Rwanda plan, while Labour said the recent ruling meant one of the prime minister’s five key pledges was collapsing completely.

Controlling immigration is one of the main pillars of British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s program, who promised to stem the flow of small boats carrying refugees from France to the UK after their numbers skyrocketed this year.

Last year, a record number of £45,755 people arrived in Britain in small boats across the English Channel, while 11,000 have arrived since the beginning of this year so far, at a rate similar to the first half of 2022.

The United Nations Human Rights Commissioner has urged the British government to rethink its proposed policy to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Volker Turk said the British plans raised very serious concerns in terms of international human rights and refugee laws.

The UN Refugee Agency also welcomed the court’s decision, saying the UK should pursue other measures, including cooperation with its European neighbors.

Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch, says Home Secretary Suella Braverman should focus her efforts on fixing the UK’s broken and neglected migration system—rather than treating human beings like cargo it can ship elsewhere.

On the other hand, tweeters expressed their dissatisfaction with the statements of Suella Braverman, who claims to represent most British citizens, and declared their support for the decision of the Court of Appeal, emphasizing the importance of a system that upholds the rule of law and protects people’s interests rather than being biased against them.

 

Costly Action

In a related context, an assessment of the economic impact of the irregular immigration bill, which is being discussed before the House of Commons, revealed that the total cost of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda costs more than their stay in the United Kingdom.

The total cost of deporting an asylum seeker to Rwanda is estimated at £169,000 per person, while housing support for an asylum seeker is £106,000, the BBC reported.

But the same analysis warned that rising accommodation costs could mean that the cost of housing an asylum seeker in the UK could reach £165,000 per person within four years.

On its part, the Home Office said it was currently spending nearly £7 million a day on hotel accommodation to house asylum seekers while their claims were processed.

As part of its attempt to win support from the British Parliament on the bill, the ministry indicated that if irregular immigration flights to the UK were to be reduced, all costs would be avoided.

The British government recently sought to classify all asylum applications submitted by people who arrived illegally as “illegal.”

The Director of the Refugee Council, Enver Solomon, warned that the bill currently being discussed by parliament would leave tens of thousands of refugees without the possibility of obtaining the protection they deserve under international law, if passed in its current form.

Solomon pointed out that this will cause difficulties and cost billions of pounds, and will not alleviate the current crisis and pressures in the asylum system.

On its part, the Labour Party criticized the impact assessment conducted by the government, stating that it showed officials’ ignorance of the real cost of dealing with the immigrant file.

Labour’s Yvette Cooper says the Rwanda scheme is unworkable, unethical, and extortionate, a costly and damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking.