(4 minutes read)
In a significant ruling, a five-member bench of the British Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the appeal court that there was a real risk in deporting people to the East African country of Rwanda
In a significant ruling, a five-member bench of the British Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the appeal court that there was a real risk in deporting people to the East African country of Rwanda. This goes against the much-touted policy of the British Government to address illegal immigration, which is growing. Britain is not the only country facing this problem. Other West European countries also openly conceded that illegal immigration was a challenge they had to confront. They were also eagerly looking forward to the British Court’s decision as a precedence to cite.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government had argued the scheme was crucial to reducing illegal migration across the Channel and had appealed the lower court decision for the consideration of the Supreme Court.
Reading out the judgment, Lord Reed, the president of the Supreme Court, said the judges agreed unanimously with the Court of Appeal ruling that there was a real risk of claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda, resulting in asylum seekers being wrongly returned to their country of origin. He pointed to crucial evidence from the United Nations refugee agency, the UNHCR, which highlighted the failure of a similar deportation agreement between Israel and Rwanda.
It was a deadly blow to Rishi Sunak’s immigration policy. Following the judgment, Sunak said his government was already working on a new treaty with Rwanda. If the English government is ready to propose another agreement, of course, it will be carefully studied in relation to what happened in court, Rwandan authorities said. Rwandan opposition Green Party leader Frank Habineza welcomed the court’s decision, saying Britain should not have tried to shift its obligations elsewhere.
It may be recalled that the recently sacked Interior Minister Suella Braverman, in a letter released to the press accused prime minister Sunak of breaking an agreement to insert clauses into UK law that would have “blocked off” legal challenges under the European Convention on human rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act. She further blamed Sunak for having no “credible plan B” if the Supreme refused to buy the Government’s argument. The decision is likely to spark a political storm in the complex political situation in Britain.
Sunak said the government would consider its next steps and claimed there was a “plan B”, despite Braverman’s criticisms. He added that his government had spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and was completely committed to stopping the boats. The Supreme Court – like the Court of Appeal and the High Court before it – has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful.
The judgment will raise serious questions about expenditure on the scheme. More than £140m has already been paid to the Rwandan government. The government has refused to disclose a further breakdown of the costs of the scheme and legal fees.
Read Also:
https://trendsnafrica.com/radical-political-changes-in-britain-will-that-affect-immigration-policy/
https://trendsnafrica.com/britain-eagerly-awaits-supreme-court-decision-on-immigration-policy/
In the meantime, Rwandan Government said that Rwanda accepts, and respects the unanimous decision. However, it does not agree with the point which states that refugees or migrants sent to Rwanda would be unsafe. Kigali said it was committed to its international obligations and its exemplary treatment of refugees.
