Mikaela Braddy Smith
In the United Kingdom (UK), a debate has sparked over a new bill that was introduced in Parliament on Thursday, December 7th – the “Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.[1] It aims to legally assert Rwanda as a safe country for asylum seekers, allowing the UK to turn away migrants without considering their asylum applications and instead send them elsewhere to settle.[2] It would also order courts to ignore British human rights law, international law, and European Court of Human Rights emergency orders which could deter or halt courts from deporting migrants to Rwanda.[3] The draft legislation has gone before members of parliament with a warning from Home Secretary James Cleverly that it may not be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, whilst urging lawmakers to approve it anyways.[4] Stemming from policies first announced in 2022 by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the bill has been championed now by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who is prioritizing “stopping the boats” of migrants seeking to enter the UK over international and domestic law obligations.[5]
In April 2022, a Migration and Economic Partnership began between the UK and Rwanda, including an asylum partnership which allows for the UK to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda.[6] In June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights issued an injunction to halt removals until proceedings had wound their way through the UK Courts.[7] This past November, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the asylum arrangement was unlawful, holding that Rwanda is not safe for refugees as they could be sent to other countries to face persecution.[8] In response, the UK government signed a new treaty with Rwanda containing safeguards for migrants deported there and began work on the draft legislation at hand.[9] The new treaty establishes an appeal body and monitoring mechanisms which aim to create comprehensive review of asylum cases as well as allowing for asylees to lodge complaints.[10] Between this treaty and earlier iterations of the agreement, the UK government has sent at least £240m to Rwanda in securing the asylum policy, with a further £50m to be sent next year. [11]
The UK Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country for asylum seekers stems not just from the risk of refoulement, or forcible return of asylum seekers to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution,[12] but additional concerns of “shortcomings in the asylum process” which would constitute treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment).[13] The ruling was also focused on the European Court’s examination of assurances, as embedded in the treaties between the UK and Rwanda, with a focus on the factors of: “the disclosure of the terms of the assurances to the court, the general human rights situation in the receiving state, the receiving state’s laws and practices, its record in abiding by similar assurances, the existence of monitoring mechanisms, and the examination of the reliability of the assurances by the domestic courts of the sending state.”[14]
After ignoring human rights organizations’ reports, ignoring its own assessments of the human rights situation in Rwanda, and losing its case in the Supreme Court, the UK government introduced this bill to circumvent the ruling and its domestic and international legal obligations.[15] The treaties between the UK and Rwanda, though addressing refoulement, do not address the multitude of other human rights concerns in Rwanda.[16] The UK Government’s persistence is evidence of Prime Minister Sunak and his party’s commitment to deter illegal migration (particularly via small boat crossings) to the UK, with no consequence given to the human rights implications or the monetary cost in securing Rwanda’s participation.
[1] Stephen Castle and Abdi Latif Dahir, Sunak’s New Rwanda Bill Aims to Override Some Human Rights Law, N. Y. Times (Dec. 6, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/world/europe/uk-bill-asylum-rwanda.html.
[2] Id.
[3] Becky Morton and Dominic Casciani, New Rwanda bill gives ministers power to disregard some human rights law, BBC News (Dec. 6, 2023, 01:09 AM), https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67641805.
[4] Jill Lawless, The UK plans to ignore part of its human rights law to revive a Rwanda asylum plan, Associated Press (Dec. 6, 2023, 1:34 PM), https://apnews.com/article/uk-rwanda-migrants-safety-bill-2af15a66c92e22c36317542d8dd03d70.
[5] Id. Joshua Nevitt, New Rwanda asylum treaty deals with Supreme Court concerns, says James Cleverly, BBC News (Dec. 5, 2023, 01:26 AM), https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67627696.
[6] Joanna Dawson and C.J. McKinney, Research Briefing on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill 2023-24, House of Commons Library (Dec. 8, 2023), https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9918/.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Joshua Nevitt, New Rwanda asylum treaty deals with Supreme Court concerns, says James Cleverly, BBC News (Dec. 5, 2023, 01:26 AM), https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67627696.
[10] Id.
[11] What is the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?, BBC News (Dec. 8, 2023), https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866.
[12] Definition of refoulement, Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refoulement.
[13] R (on the application of ASM (Iraq)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2023] UKSC 42 (U.K.), ¶6. European Convention on Human Rights art. 3, Nov. 4, 1950, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG.
[14] R (on the application of ASM (Iraq)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2023] UKSC 42 (U.K.), ¶48.
[15] Lewis Mudge, The UK Can’t Legislate Away Rwanda’s Rights Record, Human Rights Watch (Dec. 8, 2023, 11:15AM), https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/08/uk-cant-legislate-away-rwandas-rights-record.
[16] Id.