On December 13, the UK Home Secretary, James Cleverly, inked an asylum treaty with Rwanda, as part of efforts to bypass a recent ban by the UK Supreme Court. The ban was initiated to prevent the government’s strategy of dispatching asylum seekers to the African nation.
During a pressconference, Cleverly assured that “this treaty resolves all the issues raised by their lordships in the Supreme Court.”
The contentious policy was first unveiled in April 2022. The government sought to deter asylum seekers from undertaking the hazardous crossing of the English Channel. Part of the Conservative Party’s campaign to “stop the boats,” the government declared that undocumented asylum seekers arriving in the UK would be sent to Rwanda to have their claims examined. The plan drew criticism from various charities and NGOs, leading the European Court of Human Rights to halt deportation flights. Following several legal objections, the plan was stopped by the UK Supreme Court in November, ruling that Rwanda was not a safe nation and the policy violation of law.
Cleverly travelled to Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, and signed the new treaty with Rwandan Foreign Affairs Minister, Vincent Biruta. According to the UK government, this treaty will ensure that relocated individuals will not be returned to a country where their life or freedom is at risk. It establishes a new appeal authority, comprising judges of different nationalities, to hear individual appeals. Furthermore, it bolsters the Independent Monitoring Committee responsible for overseeing aspects like reception conditions, asylum claim processes, and ongoing support for individuals.
Despite these assurances, the new treaty has been severely criticised by human rights and refugee rights organisations. The Refugee Council expressed that the new treaty, which divests UK-based hearing rights, effectively shuts the door on refugees who have lost everything. Critics have also raised concerns about the economic impact of the Rwandan policy. It has cost the UK government at least £140 million. While Cleverly maintains that there was no financial incentive for the new treaty, he acknowledges that “dealing with migration is important, and it is not a cost-free option.”
For more details, refer to the full article on JURIST – News.