On 23 April, the UK Parliament approved the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. The Bill is a reaction to the UK Supreme Court’s November 2023 ruling that the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP), more commonly known as the “Rwandan Policy”, was unlawful. The Bill addresses the human rights problems identified by the Supreme Court in the previous policy. Despite this, the passing of the Bill has garnered significant criticism from various human rights organisations.
Under the previous iteration of the Rwandan Policy, the UK was to send all asylum seekers who were deemed by the Home Secretary to be inadmissible to Rwanda. Rwanda would then have decided the merits of their asylum case. If asylum were granted, they would have remained in Rwanda. The Supreme Court declared the policy unlawful as it violated the Immigration Rules. Under the Immigration Rules, the Home Secretary was allowed to remove inadmissible applicants to a “safe” third-party country that had agreed to accept them. The issue was that Rwanda was not a “safe” third-party country. The ruling was due to Rwanda’s practice of deporting asylum applicants they deemed to be insufficient to their countries of origin where they faced a serious risk of imprisonment and inhumane treatment. In addition to violating the Immigration Rules, the Supreme Court also ruled that the risk of being sent back violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. This ruling was a blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who had made “stop the boats” a key aspect of his political platform. Not long after the ruling, Sunak announced that upgrading the Rwandan policy from an agreement to a treaty was already taking place.
Now, roughly five months later, the promised treaty has arrived. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which supplements the treaty, was more or less, designed to legally declare Rwanda a “safe” third-party country. The government has contended that Supreme Court did not declare Rwanda itself, as “unsafe”, but rather that its practice of deporting asylum seekers to their countries of origin was what made the country “unsafe”. Thus, so long as the treaty prevented them from doing this, the Rwandan Policy could move forward. The Bill, thus declares that Rwanda is “safe” so long as it follows the provisions of the treaty. The treaty declares that Rwanda will not remove anyone who was relocated there from the UK unless it is back to the UK. Additionally, if an applicant is not granted refugee status, then they will be granted permanent residency in Rwanda. If followed, this treaty would seemingly alleviate the Supreme Court's concerns. However, under the Bill, Courts are prevented from delaying an applicant’s removal to Rwanda based on deciding if Rwanda is a “safe” country.
The Bill is a massive step forward for Rishi Sunak and the Conservative party. Home Secretary James Cleverly called the Bill “vital legislation” and Rishi Sunak called it “not just a step forward but a fundamental change in the global equation on migration”. However, human rights organisations have condemned the Bill. Amnesty International said that the bill set “an extremely dangerous precedent” and is “one of the most shameful acts of any Parliament in this country’s history”. The Bill and the Rwandan Policy in general, are not just setbacks for asylum seekers in the UK but are illustrative of a growing problem throughout Europe. Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, stated that “the Rwanda Bill’s adoption is another representation of an ongoing trend towards externalisation of asylum and migration policy in Europe, which is a matter of concern for the global system of protection of the rights of refugees”. The Home Secretary has announced that flights of asylum seekers to Rwanda will begin in “10 to 12 weeks” and it remains to be seen how or even if this Bill will play out in the courts.
The implementation of the Rwanda Bill will also have a greater influence on the EU’s categorisation of the UK as a “safe third country”. In a recent Irish High Court decision, it was decided that the Minister for Justice could not designate the UK as a “safe third country” as this would be contrary to EU Law, in particular reference to the possibility of an asylum seeker in UK being sent to Rwanda.
Click here to read more about the Irish High Court Case
Click here for the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Click here for the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill fact sheet