Fundamentals

In November 2023, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the UK government’s plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda was “unlawful”. At surface level, this proposed plan intends to offer a safer alternative to asylum-seekers who are otherwise forced to enter the UK dangerously. The Conservative government insists that those sent to Rwanda would be settled into the country as Rwandan citizens or would have the opportunity to travel to another safe country. However, legal challenges have halted this plan, as various bodies, including the Supreme Court, have countered the Government’s claims.

According to the BBC, the Supreme Court further pointed out the Government’s own criticisms of Rwanda from 2021, when they condemned its “extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture”. Though the plan remains on standby, various members of government, including Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, are still advocating on its behalf. Prioritising the safety of asylum-seekers by “stopping the boats” is supposedly the Prime Minister’s main concern, yet safety concerns were the very reason behind the Supreme Court’s initial declaration of the plan’s unlawfulness.

Despite the Government’s recent ruling that Rwanda is a safe country to relocate refugees, the Supreme Court vocalised concerns that asylum-seekers would not be met with welcome arms and would instead risk ‘refoulement’. This means they would be forcibly returned to their home country, where they may face persecution: a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The externalisation of refugee protection has been criticised by academics as well as official bodies such as the Supreme Court. The proposed displacement of asylum-seekers from the UK to Rwanda brings into question the Government’s understanding of humanitarian risk and the potential misuse of power, economic and otherwise. Furthermore, “externalising refugee protection” makes it unclear whether the British government would still be compliant to the laws set by the ECHR. Additionally, the Government’s continued persistence, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, reveals a deep misplacement of priority regarding refugee rights.

Reports from refugees who have travelled from the UK to Rwanda for medical reasons are already indicating the validity of the ruling. According to the New Humanitarian, one woman has reported living in constant fear of being “raped again”, and medical workers in Rwanda have refused to provide clarification about the seemingly harmful, unsafe, and potentially violent situation. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Supreme Court was right to block the Government’s proposed plan, yet even without the plan in place innocent asylum-seekers are still subjected to abuse and are being stripped of their human rights.