Britain’s judiciary this week blocked the Conservative government’s plan to relocate irregular migrants to Rwanda, a ruling hailed by human rights groups and set to be appealed by the executive branch.
The Court of Appeal ruled, by a margin of two to one, that Rwanda cannot be considered a safe third country. It warned that deporting asylum seekers due to perceived flaws in the UK’s own system would be unlawful until those flaws are addressed, underscoring a broader strategy in question.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak indicated his intention to appeal the decision. The Supreme Court, opposition parties and NGOs have pressed for abandoning the controversial project, a stance also echoed by the United Nations.
Split among the judges
Several refugees and humanitarian organizations challenged a December Supreme Court ruling that supported the government policy, and the Supreme Court later accepted those objections.
Chief Justice of England and Wales, Ian Burnett, presented a resolution that questioned the government’s immigration approach tied to the asylum reform bill then advancing through Parliament.
From a three-judge panel Burnett noted that gaps in the Rwandan system could lead to asylum claims not being processed properly and to potential repatriations that would be unlawful.
Yet he judged that the guarantees offered by the government would suffice and that Rwanda remains a safe country in his view, a minority conclusion that allowed the government to pursue its appeal.
The UK and Rwanda had agreed on a five year transfer plan in April 2022, with the majority of migrants who reached British shores irregularly to have their claims assessed there, preventing a return to the UK in most cases.
Britain had allocated around 120 million pounds for this arrangement, with estimates in the region of 138 million euros earmarked for development funds and for processing and integrating each relocated individual.
The government stays committed
Sunak took to social media to express disagreement with the court’s decision, saying that the Rwandan government has provided the guarantees needed to ensure that resettled refugees do not pose an unmanageable risk of being sent back to unsafe countries.
Interior Minister Suella Braverman reaffirmed a plan she described as stable and deterrent, intended to discourage people from arriving by boat across the English Channel. She also argued that the policy of relocating asylum seekers to a safe third country remains aligned with the Refugee Convention, despite the court’s stance on Rwanda’s safeguards.
Rwanda’s government reiterated that the country remains one of the safest in the world and stressed its commitment to making the partnership work, arguing that a flawed global migration system fails to protect vulnerable people and can empower criminal gangs through mismanaged processes.
The UN refugee agency UNHCR welcomed the judges’ decision as a reminder against outsourcing asylum obligations to other states. Critics and opposition voices called for canceling the plan, labeling it unethical and costly, with one Labour spokesperson noting that deportation costs per person were substantially higher than domestic processing, according to internal party data.
Human Rights Watch described the proposal as cruel and inhumane and urged that it be withdrawn from consideration, while Amnesty International UK called for a halt to any further steps that could erode the country’s international standing or harm people involved in the process.
The first flight planned for Rwanda was halted by a ruling in June 2022, with the European Court of Human Rights facing sharp criticism from conservative policymakers for the decision that followed. The evolving legal debate continues as the policy faces further judicial scrutiny and political pushback from multiple sides.