The UK government’s appeal case concerning its Rwanda asylum policy commenced on Monday in the UK Supreme Court in a fresh and critical step in the country’s ongoing immigration initiatives. The case saw prolonged legal analysis, as the Home Office attempted to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in June that deemed the plan unlawful. Further details about the case can be found on the UK Supreme Court’s website.
The controversial Rwanda policy is part of the UK government’s updated approach to immigration, which works hand in hand with the Illegal Migration Act. The Act clarifies that anyone who arrives in the UK unlawfully must be “detained and then promptly removed” either to their home country or a “safe third country.” The Rwanda policy classifies Rwanda as a “safe third country”, facilitating the expulsion of migrants to the East African nation. The legality of this policy was challenged in a Court of Appeal hearing in June, in which judges ruled the Rwanda policy violated Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Under the Human Rights Act, the government is compelled to respect the ECHR, thereby rendering the Rwanda policy unlawful.
The subject of the current appeal, heard at the Supreme Court, is whether the Home Office’s innovative but contentious approach to immigration adheres to the country’s obligations under national and international law. James Eadie, representing the Home Office, disgereed with the Court of Appeal conclusion, arguing that the scheme is lawful and safe. He claimed the policy falls under a “legitimate and key policy aim” to “take effective steps that will act as a deterrent to those undertaking the perilous journey … across the channel.” He further suggested that while Rwanda is “less attractive” than the UK, it is “nevertheless safe.”
Contrarily, Raza Husain, representing the asylum seekers challenging the Rwanda policy, labeled the policy as “a difficult line” which the Secretary of State has crossed “by a significant margin.” He contended that Rwanda is “an authoritarian, one party state which doesn’t tolerate criticism” and therefore cannot be deemed a safe third country. He also denounced Rwanda’s government, claiming it “is a regime that repeatedly imprisons, tortures, and murders those it considers to be its opponents, including after they have fled the country.”
Although the hearing concluded on October 11, a decision is not anticipated until sometime in November. For more information, please see Jurist.org.