In November 2023 a ruling from the UK Supreme Court had held illegal the government’s plan to deport in Rwanda asylum seekers, of any nationality, who have arrived illegally in Gran Brittany. The ruling focused on the legal principle of non-refoulement, known internationally as non-refoulement: this is a fundamental principle of international law that prohibits the country receiving asylum seekers from sending them back to a country where they would be likely danger of being persecuted for “race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.
The ruling established that, in this regard, Rwanda could not be considered a “safe third country” where to send asylum seekers. The Supreme Court cited evidence that had been presented by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, evidence that demonstrated that there was no solid foundation to ensure that the Government of Rwanda would comply with its international obligations. In the Court’s view, it was not enough for the Rwandan government to say it wanted them respect in the face of so much evidence that demonstrated the opposite.
See also
United Kingdom, this is how the police takes migrants from their homes to send them to Rwanda: the video released by the Ministry of the Interior
The Prime Minister’s government Rishi Sunakobsessed with the traffickers’ boats that unload illegal immigrants on the English coasts – when they don’t sink before reaching them – having taken note of the sentence, he immediately took action to find a solution in view of the upcoming elections and, after concluding a treaty with the Rwandan governmentpromoted a law that was finally approved by Parliament on April 25th, despite having been uselessly criticized and amended by the House of Lords who, being appointed for life, do not feel threatened by elections and can reason based on criteria different by those who lead the members of the House of Commons.
It’s about the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which requires the Republic of Rwanda to be permanently treated as a safe country for asylum seekers. It is an Act which gives effect to the judgment of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country, whether or not Rwanda is indeed a safe country: (1 (1) (b) this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country). Hence the obligation for those who have to make related decisions to consider the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country: (2 (1) Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country).
For example, even in the presence of unequivocal evidence that people deported to Rwanda are at risk of rejectionimmigration officials, when deciding whether to transfer an individual to Rwanda, will still have to consider Rwanda to be a safe country and the courts, regardless of the facts, will no longer be able to stop deportations based on the well-founded belief that Rwanda it is not a safe country.
Now, although Parliament is sovereign and has the right to respond to a court ruling by passing a law aimed at modifying a point of internal law, how is it possible that it can use a law to alter reality adapting it to your own ends? It would be as if Parliament approved a measure establishing that the Earth is stationary and the Sun revolves around it and everyone had to adapt.
Read Also
Congo, the M23 militiamen linked to Rwanda have conquered the area of the Attanasio murder: it is now inaccessible
Another point of the law, point 5, concerns the “Interim measures” of the European Court of Human Rights (Rule 39 – interim measures – of the Rules of Court), i.e. urgent measures and binding adopted by the Court in proceedings pending before it, with the aim of avoiding or preventing the imminent risk of irreparable damage to the rights of the individual. In paragraph 2 it is stated that only to a minister of the Crown it is up to decide whether the UK will have to comply with the provisional measure (It is for a Minister of the Crown (and only a Minister of the Crown) to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure). In the event that the minister decides not to respect an indication contained in the urgent measure, for example by not blocking the deportation of an irregular immigrant to Rwanda; however, it is the responsibility of the public employees – operating under the Civil Service Code – implement that decision and the Civil Service Code states that officials they must respect the lawwhich includes international law (so much so that the Code itself provided that an official, who had been served with a direction under Rule 39, had to immediately block and postpone a deportation).
Any ministerial instruction to ignore a European Court order would constitute a violation of the terms of service of public officials and their union, the FDA, noted that public employees could potentially be prosecutable, if they followed up on a minister’s request to ignore an urgent injunction from the Strasbourg court prohibiting a deportation. The FDA has already sent a warning letter to James Cleverly, the Home Secretary, outlining his concerns on the matter.
There is also another difficulty which concerns the planes that should transport asylum seekers to Rwanda. Sunak says he has already booked commercial charter planes for this very purpose, but UN experts have already warned airlines that flying people to Rwanda could make them complicit in human rights violations. In a joint statement, Siobhán Mullall, United Nations Special Rapporteur against trafficking in human beings, Gehad Madi, Special Rapporteur on the protection of the rights of migrants, Alice Jill Edwards, Special Rapporteur on torture, recalled that even “companies they are obliged to respect human rights”.
Is Suella Braverman a ‘disgrace’ for joking about migrant accommodation in Rwanda?
Critics say she’s reached a ‘new low’ by gushing over living quarters, stating she might use the same interior designer.
She was also pictured laughing in a photo.
What do you make of it all? pic.twitter.com/JeW4PKQTIt
— Jeremy Vine On 5 (@JeremyVineOn5) March 20, 2023
However, these considerations aside, the negative publicity surrounding the entire migrant deportation program, which leads major companies to stay away from it so as not to damage their brand. It is known that the government has turned to smaller companies: there has been talk of Privilege Style, Titan Airways, AirTanker, but, as soon as a new name emerges, the activists of Freedom from Torture and other humanitarian organizations write to the company managers for dissuade him, they stage protests and usually succeed in their aim, obtaining declarations in which the companies proclaim that they do not want to participate in the flight plan to Rwanda. Not even the Rwandan state company Rwandairowned by the government, wanted to know, for fear of reputational damage to its brand.
Read Also
Migrants, the British Supreme Court rejects the Sunak government’s plan on transfers to Rwanda: “Risk of forced repatriations”
Curious fear, because only a few days ago the spokesperson of the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, said that Kigali is pleased on learning of the UK’s decision to pass a law allowing irregular immigrants to be sent to the African country and that its government looks forward to welcoming those who will be relocated to Rwanda.
The British government also suffers from contradictions: it claims that the prospect of forced transfers to Rwanda will succeed in dissuading migrants from reaching the English coast by boat and then it is busy painting positive request the structures prepared in Kigali to welcome them. If Rwanda has so many advantages, why use it as a bogeyman?