The English Channel continues to witness thousands of tragic deaths of illegal migrants trying to cross over to the UK and Europe. When Prime Minister of the UK, Rishi Sunak came to power, he asserted that “Stopping the boats” remained a key priority of his government.
To plug the exorbitant and risky illegal migrant flow via the English Channel into the UK, the government concluded an MoU with Rwanda in April 2022 namely the Migration and Economic Development Partnership. Under the five-year ‘asylum partnership arrangement’, illegal asylum seekers arriving in the UK after 1st Jan 2022, were to be sent to Rwanda to be reviewed for granting refugee status to stay in Rwanda or seek asylum in another “safe third country”. The agreement had raked up a lot of debate within the UK and across the globe.
In November 2023, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the contentious plan was unlawful, citing concerns that under the plan, the Asylum seekers may be sent back to the very country they fled and face persecution. In legal language, it is known as ‘refoulement’. This breached the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), of which the UK is a signatory. To overcome the Supreme Court ruling, and move forward, the government recently published a new Migration Treaty with Rwanda asserting that additional safeguards assured the safety of asylum seekers in Rwanda.
The “Safety of Rwanda Bill “caused uproar within and beyond the country’s borders. The passage of the Bill provoked public dissent, calling for a compassionate approach to refugees. Internationally, it has raised questions about the UK’s commitment to International human rights standards.
The controversy brings into the limelight, not only the apathy of the UK government’s immigration policy but also the image of Rwanda as a partner to ease the UK’s migration woes. According to Immigration policy experts, Rwanda lacked an efficient asylum system that could process the requests fairly and accurately. The Supreme Court of the UK’s objection to the Rwanda Bill was primarily based on three factors. These included Rwanda’s poor human rights record, the systemic defects in asylum processing, and its previous record of sending asylum seekers to countries of origin under its similar agreement with Israel. Rwanda’s human rights record is marred with evidence of crushing and killing any voice of dissent against the government. As far as Rwanda’s institutional capacity to process asylum claims, it is alleged that it had weak legal representation, and judges and lawyers acted as puppets in the hands of the government. UNHCR had reported clear evidence of 100% rejection of asylum claims by Rwanda of citizens of certain countries like Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen from 2020 -2022. In general, there is a view that Rwanda lacked understanding of the Refugee Convention. According to UNHCR, asylum seekers in Rwanda were frequently moved clandestinely to Uganda, breaching the Refugee Convention.
In short, the UK’s attempt to arrest the massive inflow of migrants into the country by sending these asylum seekers to Rwanda has stirred up a hornet’s nest, unfolding legal battles, political maneuvers, and public dissent. The passage of the intricate Bill has provoked an international debate over immigration policy that should strike a balance between national security and humanitarian concerns. The passage of the Bill is likely to shape the UK’s Immigration Policy and will be a deciding factor in the international reputation of the UK. Even though the new treaty proclaims the introduction of new safeguards to make Rwanda a safe country for deporting refugees, the government of the UK cannot simply wish away many glaring drawbacks in the Rwandan system.
For Rwanda, if it wants to continue to partner with Countries and support their migration challenge, it is crucial to win their trust by rectifying its operational deficiencies transparently and ethically.
