Migrants, refugees… confronted with the Exodus file The Court of Appeal says the African country cannot be considered a ‘safe third country’. His verdict is still open for appeal, although the project has been the subject of controversy in the country for more than a year.
For the NGO Human Rights Watch, this is “rare good news in the bleak human rights landscape in the UK”. This Thursday, June 29, the British judiciary rejected the Conservative government’s controversial plan to deport migrants who arrived on its soil illegally to Rwanda. “As long as the deficiencies in the asylum procedure are not addressed, posting asylum seekers to Rwanda will be illegal,” she said in a summary of the ruling. This judgment does not imply that one has “no opinion whatsoever as to the political merits” of this measure and that it is only a question of assessing whether this policy is in accordance with the law. His decision contradicts that of the British High Court of Justice, which ruled that the deportation program was lawful in December.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that his government intends to appeal to the Supreme Court the decision of the Court of Appeal that declared the plan to deport migrants to Rwanda illegal. “I respect the court, but I fundamentally disagree with its findings,” the conservative prime minister said in a statement. “Rwanda is a safe country. We will now seek permission to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court,” he added.
“Flaws in the asylum system”
The Court of Appeal believes the East African country cannot be considered a “safe third country”. “The deficiencies in the asylum system are so great that there is a risk that people sent to Rwanda will be sent back to their country of origin.” She also points out that deportation to Rwanda would “constitute a violation” of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states: “No one shall harm or inflict torture on anyone”.[ysonttelles»qu’ilpeutyavoir«unrisqueréelquelespersonnesenvoyéesauRwandasoientrenvoyéesdansleurpaysd’origine»EllesouligneégalementquetouteexpulsionversleRwandaconstituerait«uneviolation»del’article3delaConventioneuropéennedesdroitsdel’Hommequidisposeque«personnenepeutinfligeràquiconquedesblessuresoudestories»[ysonttelles»qu’ilpeutyavoir«unrisqueréelquelespersonnesenvoyéesauRwandasoientrenvoyéesdansleurpaysd’origine»EllesouligneégalementquetouteexpulsionversleRwandaconstituerait«uneviolation»del’article3delaConventioneuropéennedesdroitsdel’Hommequidisposeque«personnenepeutinfligeràquiconquedesblessuresoudestortures»
Rwanda remains “fully committed” to making the partnership with the UK “work,” said Kigali government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo. “While that decision ultimately rests with the UK courts, we dispute the fact that Rwanda is not considered a safe country for refugees and asylum-seekers.” On the human rights front, Rwanda has been regularly criticized for its harsh crackdown on political opposition and disregard for freedom of expression.
Whether the plan is “systematically unfair” and whether asylum seekers should be prevented from being deported to a country where they risk being persecuted was one of the main questions of the hearing. Then, in April, the plaintiffs’ lawyers denounced the first judges’ “exaggerated consideration” of assurances protecting migrants from torture or inhumane treatment. Response from Home Office lawyers: London has full confidence in Kigali’s assurances, citing the Rwandan government’s will to “co-operate with international surveillance mechanisms”.
Fighting illegal immigration is one of the priorities of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government. He is therefore continuing this project, first carried out by Boris Johnson in 2022. It has a dual purpose: to reduce costs for taxpayers and prevent border crossings. Because despite the Tories’ promises on Brexit to “take back control of their borders”, the year 2022 marked a record: More than 45,000 migrants crossed the English Channel from France on board small boats. This year there are already over 11,000.
This ruling “offers an opportunity for the government to change course” instead of “treating people like cargo to be shipped elsewhere, it should focus on ending the hostile environment towards refugees and asylum seekers,” stressed Yasmine Ahmed, director the NGO Human Rights Watch in the UK. She is urging UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman to “give up this feverish, impractical and unethical dream”.
The flight was grounded in June 2022
The plan to send illegal migrants to Rwandan soil was presented in Boris Johnson’s immigration plan in April 2022. Outrage had spread across Britain. Even in the ranks of the royal family. King Charles, heir to the throne at the time, would have even described it as “appalling”. This did not prevent the British government from forging a deal with Kigali that would allow migrants to be expelled in hopes of preventing them from crossing the border. The first flight was even planned for June 2022, but was stopped in extreme cases by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This required a more detailed examination of this policy.
A recent government-own impact assessment adds some more inconsistencies in government communications. She points out that each person sent to Rwanda while their asylum application is being examined should cost the state £169,000 (€197,000). That’s £63,000 more than housing the same person on UK soil. However, the Department estimates that £106,000 (€123,290) could be saved per asylum seeker over four years, particularly on accommodation costs. According to this data, for the project to be worthwhile, two out of five migrants would have to be prevented from crossing the English Channel.
In 2021, 27 people lost their lives trying to cross the English Channel, one of the busiest straits in the world. At least four others have died in the past year.