Recently, the UK captured global attention by unveiling a novel initiative to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda.

This move has sparked widespread apprehension, particularly among rights organizations that are scrutinizing the government’s motives. Despite these pressing inquiries, the government persists in its plan to transfer certain asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Nonetheless, this strategy has faced allegations of unlawfulness, a verdict reinforced by the Court of Appeal.

Numerous human rights advocates contend that this ruling might find itself challenged at the Supreme Court, thus casting a cloud of speculation across the international landscape.

What is the Rwanda asylum seekers plan?

According to international law, people can seek asylum in any country they chose. For asylees in the UK, there has been a five-year trial related to their transfer.

The decision which was announced in April 2022 stated that asylees will be sent to Rwanda on a one way ticket.

The strangest thing about this new plan is that, these people will not get an automatic acceptance into Rwanda.

They might be granted the refugee status. It is uncertain. Otherwise, they can settle there on other grounds. In other words, they can seek asylum in another  “safe third country”.

Why is UK considering this plan?

The answer to this question will not be acceptable to everyone. However, it is important. The UK government says this plan will deter people arriving in the UK through “illegal, dangerous or unnecessary methods”, such as on small boats which cross the English Channel, the BBC reported.

Apparently, the decision for some people to risk their lives to come to UK is beyond comprehension. In 2022, more than 45,700 people used this route to come to the UK.  Those were the highest figure since records began.

It is reported that, there are small-boat crossings almost every month since 2023. Though it has decreased compared to last year, the numbers are expected to rise in the coming months. 

It is one year now since the first flight was scheduled for asylees to be sent to Rwanda. This   trip was cancelled mainly because of legal challenges. There is uncertainty as to when the next flight will be planned, but speculations are high as the UK government continues talks about the issue.

What was the Court of Appeal’s decision about asylum seekers?

Regarding the huge question about Rwanda’s safety in relation to this plan, the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier ruling by the High Court. This decision which came in June 2023 proclaimed the Rwanda plan was lawful.

The judges opinioned that, Rwanda is not a safe third country. This is because there are some inconsistencies with its asylum system. One of which is that, asylum seekers could be sent back to their home countries, thus compelling them to be exposed to persecution again. 

It said that “unless and until” those deficiencies are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful, BBC reported.

From the regional perspective, this Rwanda policy breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment.

The final decision on this case was rather unclear. It was not a unanimous one. Among the three judges who precided, two agreed to reverse the High Court’s decision, but the third did not.

The judges said their decision does not imply a view about the “political merits” of the policy.

Who brought this case against the government?

Asylum Aid is a British charity working to support asylum seekers in the UK. They brought this case claiming it violates the rights of asylees in the UK.

Regarding the judgement, they said it was a “vindication of the importance of the rule of law and basic fairness when fundamental rights are at stake”.

What is UNHCR’s position?

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees advised the court in the appeal as it related to international refugee law.

They agreed with the ruling, and urged the UK government to “pursue other measures” instead.

How did the UK government respond to the decision about asylum seekers?

Representing the government, Home Secretary Suella Braverman called the judgement “disappointing”. On the other hand, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak confirmed the government will be sought permission to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. This means the legal proceedings might take a long time. 

The pressure from other refugee charities seems to be making positive effects. Airlines such as Privilege Style and two others who had previously conducted deportation flights  withdrew from their Home Office contract regarding the Rwanda scheme.

How many people might be sent to Rwanda’as asylum seekers?

To indicate the number of people who might be possibly sent to Rwanda, the government had previously said anyone entering the UK illegally after 1 January 2022 could be sent. In this statement, there was no limit about the number. 

On the side of Rwanda, it claims to be able to handle a 1,000 asylum seekers during the trial period. There could be space for more people they added.

This plan will not benefit only the UK. It is said to be an exchange wherein, Rwanda can request the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees.

How much does the asylum seeker plan cost?

Reports have it that the UK has paid the Rwandan government £140m. The overall cost is not clear to the public.

An economic-impact assessment was done for the government’s Illegal Migration Bill.  It estimated that removing each individual to a third country, such as Rwanda, would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK. 

This huge figure is the difference between the total cost of removing an individual – estimated to be £169,000 – and the £106,000 spent on housing support if they remain in the UK.

In unclear terms, the Home office claims this policy is aimed at deterring illegal individuals. The figures of the number remain undefined. 

Generally, the UK’s asylum system costs £3bn a year.  This massive amount means almost £7m a day is spent on hotel accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers.

Several critics claim the daily cost is so high because of the long time taken to decide on applications. Also, the strict ban on asylum seekers working while waiting for confirmation of their status is irrelevant. 

Are you interested in reading more articles about refugees? Click here.