LONDON: The UK government has vowed to challenge a court ruling that declared its plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda as unlawful. The decision, delivered on Thursday, dealt a blow to the Conservative administration’s efforts to deter migrants from making dangerous journeys across the English Channel. The Court of Appeal judges, in a split two-to-one ruling, stated that Rwanda could not be considered a “safe third country” for migrants from any nation.
While the judges affirmed that the policy of deporting asylum seekers to a deemed safe country was not inherently illegal, they deemed Rwanda unsuitable for this purpose. The UK government expressed its intention to appeal the ruling at the UK Supreme Court by the July 6 deadline. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, while acknowledging his respect for the court, stated his fundamental disagreement with its conclusions.
Sunak has been committed to halting the influx of migrants crossing the English Channel, commonly referred to as “stop the boats.” In an agreement reached over a year ago, the UK and Rwandan governments established that some migrants arriving in the UK as stowaways or via small boats would be sent to Rwanda for the processing of their asylum claims. Those granted asylum would remain in Rwanda rather than being allowed into the UK.
The UK government argues that this policy aims to dismantle the business model of criminal smuggling networks and reduce dangerous journeys across the English Channel. However, human rights groups criticize the plan as morally wrong and inhumane, emphasizing that it involves sending individuals thousands of miles away to a country where they do not wish to reside. Concerns are also raised about Rwanda’s human rights record.
UK Govt Faces Legal Challenges
The government had previously faced legal challenges on this policy, with the High Court ruling in December that it was lawful and did not breach international obligations. However, the recent Court of Appeal ruling allowed a group of claimants, including asylum-seekers from Iraq, Iran, and Syria, to challenge the decision on grounds of systemic unfairness and safety concerns in Rwanda.
While the appeals court affirmed that the UK’s international obligations did not prohibit the removal of asylum-seekers to a safe third country, two of the three judges concluded that Rwanda’s asylum system had “serious deficiencies.” They expressed concerns that individuals could face a real risk of being returned to their countries of origin, where mistreatment might occur. In contrast, the Chief Justice Ian Burnett dissented, asserting that assurances given by Rwanda were sufficient to ensure the safety of the migrants.
The ruling has potential implications for similar arrangements with other countries, as it raises questions about the safety and robustness of asylum procedures. The UK government is pushing ahead with the plan and is drafting legislation that would prevent those arriving in the UK through unauthorized means from applying for asylum. The bill, if passed, would require the detention and deportation of such arrivals to their home country or a designated safe third country.
