Supreme court says Sunak’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda
Rishi Sunak’s pivotal immigration strategy has suffered a setback as the UK’s highest court rejected the government’s proposal to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. The Supreme Court’ comprising five judges’ unanimously supported a previous Court of Appeal decision’ emphasizing the genuine risk of deported refugees facing flawed assessments in Rwanda or being sent back to their home countries’ exposing them to persecution.
This ruling undermines a significant commitment by the Prime Minister’ known as the promise to “stop the boats.” The government had advocated a £140 million plan involving Rwanda to deter the increasing number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK via small boats crossing the Channel—a proposition refuted by refugee charities.
Lord Reed’ the president of the Supreme Court’ highlighted the crucial evidence from the United Nations’ refugee agency’ UNHCR’ indicating the failure of a similar deportation agreement between Israel and Rwanda. This decision came on the heels of the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s contentious letter accusing the Prime Minister of reneging on an agreement to insert clauses into UK law’ aimed at preempting legal challenges under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act.
Braverman contended that Sunak lacked a “credible plan B’” warning of wasted time and legislative efforts. A faction of hard-right Conservative MPs was anticipated to support leaving the ECHR in response to the judgment. Sir John Hayes suggested tabling narrow legislation to enact the Rwanda plan before Christmas’ potentially incorporating ECHR withdrawal in the Tory election manifesto.
Responding to the ruling’ Sunak expressed the government’s commitment to exploring alternative steps’ insisting on the existence of a “plan B” despite Braverman’s critique. He reiterated the legality of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing’ as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Home Secretary James Cleverly emphasized that the Rwanda partnership’ while bold’ constituted just one element of a broader strategy to curb illegal migration. He noted a growing interest in similar models across Europe’ citing Italy’ Germany’ and Austria.
The judgment prompts scrutiny of the financial implications of the scheme’ with over £140 million already disbursed to the Rwandan government. The government has refrained from disclosing a detailed breakdown of costs and legal fees associated with the initiative.
Reed said the legal test in the case was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of being sent back to the countries they came from’ where they could face ill treatment.
Reed clarified that the legal test hinged on whether there were substantial grounds to believe that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda faced a genuine risk of being returned to their home countries’ where they might encounter ill-treatment. Enver Solomon’ CEO of the Refugee Council’ hailed the decision as a victory for those seeking safety’ urging the government to focus on a fair asylum system.
Sonya Sceats’ the chief executive of Freedom from Torture’ said: “This is a victory for reason and compassion. We are delighted that the supreme court has affirmed what caring people already knew: the UK government’s ‘cash for humans’ deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral’ but it also flies in the face of the laws of this country.
Toufique Hossain’ representing asylum seekers in the legal challenge’ regarded it as a triumph for humanity and the rule of law. Various advocacy groups’ including Freedom from Torture and Care4Calais’ echoed these sentiments’ emphasizing the inhumanity and unlawfulness of the government’s deal with Rwanda. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal and ethical standards in addressing the complex issue of asylum seekers.
Also read David Cameron Returns To UK Government As Foreign Secretary
