Rwanda’s asylum system faces criticism for its bias against potential genuine refugees, according to lawyers representing the United Nations’ Refugee Agency. This comes as part of the ongoing appeal by the UK government regarding its contentious proposal to send certain asylum seekers to Rwanda.
In June, the Court of Appeal had deemed this plan unlawful, but government officials argue that it aligns with legal requirements for humane treatment. Throughout the 16-month battle over the proposal, the evidence presented by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has played a crucial role in determining whether Rwanda qualifies as a safe destination under a complex legal evaluation.
On Tuesday, legal representatives for the UNHCR informed a panel of five Supreme Court justices that Rwanda had not demonstrated improved treatment of asylum seekers, despite providing the UK government with detailed assurances of fair treatment. The UNHCR was aware of cases involving Afghans who were repatriated from Kigali airport even before the UK agreement was finalized in April 2022. The legal team emphasized that Syrians and Eritreans had also been expelled without due consideration of the risks they would encounter in their home countries.
The UNHCR argued that the institutions and practices responsible for these decisions continued to function as before, regardless of the UK deal. While the ministers in Kigali might have entered into the migration partnership in good faith, the security officials responsible for determining the fate of potential refugees appeared to adhere to their own rules.
During Monday’s proceedings, lawyers representing the home secretary contended that Rwanda could be trusted to treat any asylum seekers sent there humanely. Sir James Eadie KC, speaking on behalf of the government, expressed confidence that Rwanda would be committed to making the arrangements work. He pointed out that Rwanda had significant reputational and financial incentives to ensure the fair treatment of asylum seekers. Additionally, extensive monitoring measures had been established, including a permanent government official in Kigali to oversee the implementation of the agreement and raise concerns. Independent monitoring of each migrant’s situation was also in place.
Given these arrangements and the detailed written commitments provided to the UK as part of the £140 million scheme, the government maintained that there were no legal grounds to interfere with the plan.
For any enquiries please, email our editorial team at [email protected]. If you liked this story, kindly sign up for Clariform Newsletter, a handpicked selection of stories that helps you clarify things that matter and gives you clear signals about your world, delivered directly to your inbox.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, and join thousands of Clariform on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
