The United Nations recently expressed severe concern regarding the United Kingdom government’s steps toward implementing measures that would facilitate the send-off of asylum seekers to Rwanda, an action known as the Rwanda deal. Critiques from the global body raise issues about the legality and human rights implications of such moves.
On Monday, the UN, led by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, lamented the UK’s actions to make the Rwanda deal functional. Türk articulated, “You cannot legislate facts out of existence,” cautioning about the potentially dangerous aftermath of human rights that may ensue.
Representing the UN, Türk made clear the potential harm that could follow: “The combined effects of this bill, attempting to shield Government action from standard legal scrutiny, directly undercut basic human rights principles.” He emphasized the relevance of independent, effective judicial oversight as the foundation of rule of law and warned against eroding international human rights and asylum-related obligations through legislation.
The UK’s Select Committee on the Constitution concurred with Türk’s apprehensions. This committee, appointed by the House of Lords to assess the constitutional implications of public bills, echoed concerns regarding the proposed Rwanda bill. The legislation’s stipulation that “Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country” has been a significant point of contention.
The concern lies in that even with explicit evidence that refugees sent to Rwanda are potentially at risk of forced return or “refoulement,” decision-makers and courts must continue to consider Rwanda as a safe country when pondering over whether transferrals should occur. The bill also restricts courts from leaning on provisions in the Human Rights Act 1998, which allows courts to interpret legislation to be consistent with Convention rights.
The Committee concludes this may transgress the separation of powers principle, a hallmark of UK constitutional law. This principle ensures no individual body wields excessive power, upholding the rule of law. However, new proposed legislation may potentially jeopardize this balance.
In November 2023, the UK Supreme Court judged that the Rwanda policy was illegal. Consequently, the UK set forth a new treaty with Rwanda, stipulating the protection of human rights.
Even with this in place, Türk asserts that the potential exclusion of a particular group from the equal protection of the law is detrimental. This exclusion contradicts Article 14 of the Human Rights Act, which safeguards against discrimination when applying human rights.
Given these issues, the UN unequivocally appealed to the UK government to abide by international human rights obligations and to seriously reconsider its current immigration policies.
Visit JURIST – News for further information.