An appeals court in the United Kingdom on Thursday ruled against the government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, an ambitious plan proposed by Rishi Sunak to check illegal migration.
The court ruled that the government's plan to send asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is unlawful. The illegal migration bill proposed by the government states that all asylum seekers arriving via “irregular means” could face being forcibly removed to Rwanda.
In a split two-to-one ruling, three Court of Appeal judges said Rwanda could not be considered a safe third country where migrants could be sent. The government is likely to challenge the ruling at the UK Supreme Court.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has pledged to stop the boats a reference to the overcrowded dinghies and other small craft that make the journey from northern France carrying migrants who hope to live in the UK. More than 45,000 people arrived in Britain across the Channel in 2022, and several died in the attempt.
According to reports, the UN’s refugee agency UNHCR, lawyers, charities and a group of asylum seekers supported the appeal against the ruling.
The UK and Rwandan governments agreed more than a year ago that some migrants who arrive in the UK as stowaways or in small boats would be sent to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. Those granted asylum would stay in the East African country rather than return to Britain.
The UK government argues that the policy will deter criminal gangs that ferry migrants on hazardous journeys across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes.
Human rights groups say it is immoral and inhumane to send people more than 4,000 miles (6,400 kilometres) to a country they don't want to live in. They also cite Rwanda's poor human rights record, including allegations of torture and killings of government opponents.
Britain has already paid Rwanda 140 million pounds ($170 million) under the deal, but no one has yet been deported there.
Britain's High Court ruled in December that the policy is legal and doesn't breach Britain's obligations under the UN Refugee Convention or other international agreements, rejecting a lawsuit from several asylum-seekers, aid groups and a border officials' union.
The Court ruled that Rwanda is not a safe third country to send illegal migrants even though the Rwandan government provided assurances in good faith. The Court found the proposal was in violation of Article 3 of the European convention on human rights.
But two of the three ruled Rwanda was not safe because its asylum system had serious deficiencies. They said asylum seekers would face a real risk of being returned to their countries of origin, where they could be mistreated.
Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett the most senior judge in England and Wales disagreed with his two colleagues. He said assurances given by the Rwandan government were enough to ensure the migrants would be safe.
The government of Rwanda took issue with the ruling, saying the nation is one of the safest countries in the world.
“As a society, and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans," said government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo. "Everyone relocated here under this partnership will benefit from this."
(With PTI inputs.)