Britain’s highest court will rule on the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda
Britain’s Supreme Court will decide on Wednesday whether the government’s controversial policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful, at a crucial moment for the ruling Conservative Party during an already turbulent week.
The Rwanda policy was first announced in April 2022 by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as he sought to deliver on the Brexit campaign’s promise to “take back control” of the country’s borders.
The harsh policy has since been implemented chased by Mr Johnson’s successors, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, each repeating his original, untested argument that the threat of deportation to Rwanda would deter the tens of thousands of people who try to cross the English Channel in small boats every year.
But it has been widely criticized from the start by rights groups and opposition politicians, with many pointing to Rwanda’s troubled human rights record. And so far, no one has been sent to the small East African country amid a series of legal challenges.
The first flight to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was scheduled for June 14, 2022, but was grounded due to an interim ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which stated that an Iraqi man should not be deported before his judicial review has been carried out. completed in Great Britain. As a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, an international agreement that Britain helped draft after World War II, the country accepts rulings from the court in Strasbourg. (Both the Court and the Convention are completely separate from the European Union.)
Last December, the UK High Court ruled in favor of the government, ruling that the Rwanda plan was lawful in principle and in accordance with legal obligations, including those imposed by Parliament under the 1998 Human Rights Act.
But in June the Court of Appeal ruled that Rwanda was not in fact a safe third country and that there was a real risk that asylum seekers would be returned to their home countries where they would face persecution or other inhumane treatment, even if they had a good asylum application. This would constitute a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court said.
The case finally came before Britain’s highest court, the Supreme Court, last month, when five judges heard arguments over three days from the government and opponents of the plan.
During that hearing, Raza Husain, a lawyer representing 10 asylum seekers from a number of conflict zones, argued that the Rwandan asylum system is “woefully flawed and characterized by acute unfairness.”
James Eadie, representing the government, argued that while Rwanda was “less attractive” than Britain, it was “nevertheless safe” for the asylum seekers, citing the guarantees included in the agreement between the two countries.
Angus McCullough, lawyer for the United Nations refugee agency, told the judges that it “maintains its unequivocal warning against the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda under the UK-Rwanda agreement”, according to reporting from The Guardian. He cited evidence that similar policies by Israel led to the disappearance of some asylum seekers after they arrived in Rwanda.
The expected ruling comes at a time of intense political unrest within the Conservative Party, which has been in power for 13 years and is lagging in the polls.
The Minister of the Interior, Suella Braverman, was fired on Monday after sparking a political firestorm over comments that homelessness was a “lifestyle choice.” She also criticized police over a pro-Palestinian march in London. It is now up to her successor, James Cleverly, to oversee the response to the Supreme Court ruling, just two days after he was appointed.
Ms. Braverman was an outspoken supporter of the deportation plan, once saying it was her “dream” to see asylum seekers sent to Rwanda. She has also argued that Britain must be prepared to reform or even to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. In a exhaustive letter She accused Mr Sunak on Tuesday of betraying a personal pledge to use legislation to override the convention, the Human Rights Act and other international laws, which she said had “hindered progress so far” in stopping of the boats.
“It was clear to me from day one that if you did not want to leave the ECHR,” she wrote, “the way to achieve our Rwanda partnership safely and quickly would be to block the ECHR, the HRA and all the others obligations that hinder our ability to remove those who have no right to reside in Britain”
Hours after her resignation on Monday, Robert Jenrick, Britain’s immigration minister, appeared to signal that the government would not simply accept a Supreme Court decision to end the policy. “We must ensure that the Rwanda policy succeeds before the next general elections,” he said The Telegraph. “No ifs, no buts, we will do everything we can to make sure this happens.”
Ragim Sagoo, director of the international law program at Chatham House, a British think tank, said that withdrawal from the European Convention, while still a fringe idea, “will continue to be the ball being played,” especially if the Supreme Court rules against the government.
“According to my analysis, it is a very strange and unconvincing proposal,” she said. “But it has really serious consequences that require in-depth investigation.”
Even if the court rules in the government’s favor, that does not mean authorities can immediately charter a plane to Rwanda, as affected asylum seekers may still be able to take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights.
Sunder Katwala, the director of British Future, a think tank focusing on attitudes to immigration, said that whatever the outcome, Mr Sunak will face an uphill battle to put the policy into practice.
He predicted continued loud calls from Ms Braverman and her far-right allies for Britain to leave the European Convention.
“But this week’s reshuffle sends a strong signal that the Prime Minister does not agree,” Mr Katwala said in a statement, suggesting that Mr Sunak could instead appoint Mr Cameron, the newly appointed minister of Foreign Office, could send “to attempt to renegotiate the terms of British participation.”
“The bigger challenge would be to demonstrate whether the plan, if legal, can work,” Mr Kalwala said. “Rwanda’s asylum system can only accommodate 1 per cent of those who came to Britain this year. That is a major practical hurdle, on top of the arguments against the plan in principle.”