Rwanda has ‘powerful incentives’ to stick to terms of deportation deal, Home Office tell Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is considering whether government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda are lawful
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Rwanda will treat asylum seekers properly because it would be reputationally embarrassing for the UK if they didn’t, the Home Office has told the Supreme Court.
The Home Office is challenging a Court of Appeal ruling from June that the multimillion-pound deal – which would see asylum seekers deported to the east African nation – was unlawful.
At the start of the three-day hearing on Monday, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, told the UK’s highest court that the policy to remove people to “a country less attractive” than the UK, “but nevertheless safe”, is lawful.
Sir James insisted that, despite evidence presented by the UNHCR to the contrary, the Rwandan government would adhere to assurances made to the UK that they would process asylum seekers properly.
He told the Supreme Court: “The practical incentives to compliance are very powerful.”
He said: “Rwanda knows full well the UK expects compliance,” adding that: “The reputational consequences of non compliance would be very serious for everyone.”
The key concern that the Supreme Court will have to consider is whether there is a real risk that asylum claims would receive inadequate consideration in Rwanda.
Sir James added that there were “pretty strong financial incentives” included in the agreement that would encourage Rwanda to treat asylum seekers properly. He also said that an extensive monitoring scheme had been set up by the UK government to oversee the decisions made by Rwanda.
“There is to be an IT tracking system; tracking each and every case going through the system,” he said. The digital system has already been in place for some months and a London team has been put in place to oversee it.
There will also be a complaints mechanism that asylum seekers will have access to and a monitoring committee will review 10 per cent of the complaints made, Sir James said.
Sir James argued that Rwanda’s past track record of treatment of asylum seekers was not relevant, saying: “Even if there are concerns about ill treatment in a foreign state, it is still possible for assurances to be provided that are a break with what has occured in the past.
“What matters is the analysis of the present and the future, in light of the assurances that have been given.”
He added that “it is not necessary to establish that nothing could ever go wrong. Or even that there is no prospect of an individual case being mishandled”.
Cases are mishandled in the UK and in other European countries, such as France, but this does not mean they are not safe countries, Sir James contested.
“The appeal is, at its heart, about the judgments made by government about the future conduct of a friendly foreign state – Rwanda,” he told a panel of five justices.
The barrister said both countries are “committed” to the deal, with “very powerful” practical incentives for Rwanda to comply with the assurances given.
The barrister continued: “Both the government and the Rwandan government were fully aware of the likely controversy of the arrangements that were made when the deal was signed.”
He added: “Everyone involved is crystal clear about the reputational impact if this goes wrong. Rwanda has ongoing financial interests and incentives in making this work”.
Raza Husain KC, representing a number of asylum seekers, said Rwanda was an “authoritarian, one-party state” with a “woefully deficient” asylum system. He added: “It’s marked by acute unfairness and arbitrariness... serious safeguarding and capacity issues.”
The UNHCR, which has intervened in the legal challenges over the policy, previously said Rwanda “lacks irreducible minimum components of an accessible, reliable, fair and efficient asylum system”.
In the agency’s written submissions to the Supreme Court, Angus McCullough KC said it had “consistently expressed grave concerns” about the safety and legality of the policy.
He continued: “UNHCR maintains its unequivocal warning against the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda under the UK-Rwanda Arrangement.”
A key UNHCR concern is that Rwanda has a history of refoulement, the forcible return of refugees to a country where they could be subjected to persecution. They raised three cases of two Afghans and one Syrian who were denied asylum and put on flights out of Rwanda in 2022.
The UNHCR raised concerns that monitoring committees would not be able to intervene in time to halt cases like these and that the Rwandan government was discriminating against asylum seekers from the Middle East. Sir James said the UNHCR were basing their arguments on a sample size that was too small.
Several asylum seekers who were set to be deported on the first planned flight to Rwanda in June 2022 – which was grounded minutes before take-off following a ruling by a judge at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – are opposing the appeal.
The hearing before Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Sales is expected to end on Wednesday, with a judgment at a later date.