The Supreme Court’s Ruling Against Britain’s Rwanda Policy

Where is Rwanda and what does the policy entail?

Rwanda is a landlocked country located in East Africa. The country is home to 14,094,683 people and is approximately 4,300 miles away from the UK. In April 2022, the UK government rolled out a five-year trial which would have sent some asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda. Once in Rwanda, asylum seekers would have their claims assessed by the Rwandan government, and could then settle in the country. From the 1st January 2022, the government claimed to send ‘anyone entering the UK illegally’ to Rwanda.  When first addressing the policy, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated that “Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world, globally recognised for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants”, which is still stressed by our government to this day.

The policy was created as a deterrent to people who were seeking to cross the English Channel into the UK illegally. This is especially relevant in our current day, as in 2022 the highest number of migrants crossing the channel which comes to 45,755 people, the highest figure since 2018. Ultimately, the policy also hopes to reduce the amount of people seeking asylum in the UK. 

What has the Supreme Court declared?

In June 2023, the Court of Appeal declared that the Rwanda policy was unlawful, concluding that no legitimate assessment had been conducted to declare Rwanda as a safe country. These fears had been raised in Government before when in 2021 Rwanda was criticised for ‘extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture’, contradicting reassurement that the Government offered in 2022 that the country was safe. This was then taken up by the Supreme Court in November 2023, where again, it was ruled unanimously that the scheme was unlawful. President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, raised concerns that asylum seekers entering Rwanda could be sent to their home countries and face persecution there, which is called ‘refoulement’ in international law. Further to this, the policy breaches the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the UK abides by, that forbids inhumane treatment.   

How has the Government responded?

Despite the statement declared by the Supreme Court, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced that he will strive to continue with the policy and that he will not allow “a foreign court to block our ability to get these flights off.” In light of the five key priorities that Rishi Sunak set out in January this year, Sunak pledges to abide by his fifth one, ‘Stop The Boats’.  Conservative Party Vice Chair Lee Anderson also told media company Politico that “The planes should just go ahead and take off anyway”. By next Monday, Sunak has stated that he will introduce a new bill to Parliament that clears Rwanda as a safe country and that is protected against refoulement. By doing so, Sunak has to be prepared to withdraw from the ECHR, which several Conservative MPs have contested against, and could potentially include new Foreign Secretary David Cameron. 

As assumed, Sunak’s deliberate rebuke of the Supreme Court has caused some controversy. Former Supreme Court judge, Lord Jonathan Sumption stated that "It would be constitutionally a completely extraordinary thing to do, to effectively overrule a decision on the facts, on the evidence, by the highest court in the land,". Humanitarian organisation British Red Cross has also stated that they wish to ‘work with the government to create a fairer, more compassionate, and effective system’.

By Komal Chauhan