The UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership: “world-leading” or “shamefully cruel”
By releasing this statement the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) expressed strong opposition and concern over the UK’s self-proclaimed “world-leading” ‘Migration and Economic Development Partnership’ (MEDP) with Rwanda. Unsurprisingly, the radical partnership has continued to face significant backlash since its announcement in April 2022 with critics claiming it is devoid of legality and morality, revealing the Home Office’s underlying disregard for refugees.
Under the scheme, the UK government would have unrestricted power to relocate an unlimited number of asylum seekers 4,000 miles from the UK to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed by the Rwandan authorities. Instead of streamlining and improving the current asylum system, the Government has chosen to outsource the UK’s obligations to refugees to a third party [1]. However, more disconcertingly, there is no guarantee that they will be taken in, with Rwanda retaining the discretion to return people to their country of origin if their applications to settle there are rejected [2]. The government has consistently justified the arrangement, claiming it will deter the business model of the “vile people smugglers” that have exploited the dreams of asylum seekers and turned the Channel into a “watery graveyard”. Yet, despite the plan applying to anyone that has entered the UK without a visa or other permission from January 1st 2022, the number of people crossing the Channel has not fallen since the policy was announced. In fact, 2022 boasted the highest figure on record with more than 45,000 people arriving via this route [3].
Whilst the government professes to be motivated by a crackdown on human trafficking, many have suggested the scheme is simply a ploy to divert attention from the broken asylum system in the UK that costs the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year. However, the MEDP itself involves the UK paying Rwanda £140 million in development funds in addition to flight costs, food, accommodation, access to legal advice and processing costs for each relocated person. Consequently, critics have condemned the plans, suggesting the Government should instead invest that vast amount of money and resources into the UK’s current asylum system, enabling it to process applications more effectively and protect the rights of refugees.
The Legality of the UK-Rwanda Partnership
As predicted, this partnership has faced intense legal scrutiny amid claims that the scheme breaches the UK’s obligations under international law. Under the UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention, people are able to seek asylum in any country they wish; protecting asylum-seeking as a fundamental human right [4]. As the UK is a signatory of the Convention, all asylum seekers have the right to apply for protection in the UK. Therefore, the announcement of the MEDP prompted the UNHCR to criticise the UK for seeking to shift its responsibilities by externalising its fundamental obligations to people seeking asylum in the country [5]. Fundamentally, the UNHCR considered the UK-Rwanda arrangement to be “incompatible with the letter and spirit of the 1951 Convention” and found the arrangement to be “inconsistent with global solidarity and responsibility-sharing”, damaging the UK’s reputation as a country committed to supporting the rights of refugees.
Six separate legal teams challenged the policy in UK courts on the grounds that it exposes asylum seekers to a ‘real risk’ of breaches of their Article 3 Right to ‘Freedom from Inhuman or Degrading Treatment’ as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights [6]. In December 2022, the High Court ruled that although the individual migrants selected for the Rwanda flights had been chosen unfairly, the partnership itself was legally permissible. Despite, the courts granting permission for 11 migrants to appeal, the Court of Appeal may still uphold the High Court judgment, allowing the UK government to continue with its plan and begin the transfer of migrants to Rwanda. Notably, as the European Court of Human Rights granted an injunction to block these flights until British judges have reached a final judgement, there are no prospects of flights leaving whilst the case goes to the Court of Appeal.
Human Rights in Rwanda
Whilst it is for the courts to decide whether the partnership breaches the 1951 Refugee Convention, nevertheless, the policy itself still appears undeniably immoral. The claimants argued that evidence of Rwanda’s “very poor human rights record and asylum processes [which are] considerably inferior to those in the UK” indicates that the Home Office wrongly concluded that Rwanda is a “safe third country” [7]. Arguably, the Government is aware of this having expressed concern in 2021 over Rwanda's failure to provide credible “investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture” [8]. Furthermore, in recent years Rwanda’s President, Paul Kagame, has come under rising scrutiny over accusations that he organised the kidnapping and murder of his political opponents in order to secure his rule.
Seeking asylum in Rwanda when compared to applying for the same status in the UK clearly imposes very different prospects given the majority of refugees in the country live in camps with limited access to economic opportunities [9]. The Rwandan government has repeatedly confirmed that all migrants would be entitled to the complete protection of Rwandan law and be guaranteed equal access to employment, healthcare and other services, however, whether this promise is credible remains to be seen. Concerningly, as the agreement between the UK and Rwanda is merely a memorandum of understanding, it is not binding and the UK cannot enforce it under UK law. This lack of legal enforceability means that if migrants are mistreated in Rwanda or are denied access to a fair immigration process, the UK will be unable to enforce those people’s rights through any legal mechanism.
Consequently, the UK’s partnership with Rwanda which was designed to solve the human migration crisis within the UK is unacceptable given Rwanda’s failing human rights records and the lack of enforceability. Regardless of whether the courts find the UK to be breaching their obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, the arrangement undoubtedly seems unethical and should be reconsidered by the Home Office.
[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9568/
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
[5] https://www.unhcr.org/uk/uk-immigration-and-asylum-plans-some-questions-answered-by-unhcr.html
[7] Ibid.
