The Court of Appeal in London has ruled that the UK government’s plan to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful because the African nation cannot be considered safe, in a setback for British prime minister Rishi Sunak.
The scheme is a centrepiece of the government’s policy on illegal immigration, which aims to curb the number of people making dangerous boat journeys across the English Channel between France and Britain.
The high court had previously ruled that the policy, which has polarised opinion since it was announced last year, was lawful. Its decision that Rwanda was a safe third country was challenged by human rights organisations, and evidence provided by the UN High Commission for Refugees was central to their case.
In a majority verdict released on Thursday, the Court of Appeal ruled that, because of deficiencies in Rwanda’s asylum system, “there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum”.
As a result, the court reversed the high court’s previous decision, ruling that “unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful”.
[ Stopping the ‘small boats’ is key to Sunak’s plan to avoid electoral annihilationOpens in new window ]
Mr Sunak said he “fundamentally” disagreed with the ruling, saying “Rwanda is a safe country”, as he announced the government would seek permission to appeal against the decision at the supreme court.
The prime minister in January made curbing the number of people coming to Britain without prior permission one of his core policy pledges after a record more than 45,000 people arrived on small boats in 2022.
He said the government should decide who comes to the UK, “not criminal gangs” — a reference to people traffickers bringing people across the Channel. “I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen,” he added.
Home secretary Suella Braverman, responding to the ruling, said she remained “fully committed” to the Rwanda plan.
Rwanda said it disagreed with the ruling. “While this is ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system, we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers and refugees,” said Yolande Makolo, a government spokeswoman.
The lord chief justice dissented from the court of appeal’s majority opinion, a rare instance in English courts.
The court rejected other grounds of the appeal by human rights organisations, including more fundamental aspects, such as the appellants’ contention that the policy would put the UK in breach of the UN Refugee Convention.
Tony Muman, a lawyer representing an asylum seeker who was one of the appellants, described the ruling as a “big victory” that cast doubt on the government’s ability to send people to Rwanda before the UK general election expected next year.
Sonya Sceats, chief executive of Freedom from Torture, one of the charities involved in the appeal, said the verdict had affirmed that “the UK government’s ‘cash for humans’ deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral, it flies in the face of the laws of this country”.
As part of a deal with Rwanda last year about sending asylum seekers to the African nation, the UK government agreed to provide £120 million in funding. It released an economic impact report this week showing the cost of deporting migrants to the country would cost about £170,000 per person.
— Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2023