Supreme Court Blocks UK's Proposal to Send Asylum Seekers to Rwanda
UK's Supreme Court blocks controversial asylum-seeker deportation plan to Rwanda, undermining PM Sunak's migration policy and likely sparking a revolt among right-wing Conservatives Political battle ensues over costly failure
The Supreme Court in the UK deemed the country's contentious scheme to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda as illegal on Wednesday. This ruling not only poses a significant threat to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's prominent migration strategy but also incited an enraged backlash from the right-wing faction of British politics. The highest court of the UK unanimously opposed the government's stance, instead aligning with a previous appeals court judgment that deemed the policy, which has faced widespread condemnation from humanitarian organizations, as illegitimate.
The ruling definitively thwarted the government's appeal and foiled their attempt to transport asylum seekers who enter the UK unlawfully to the east African country. This plan was initially revealed in April 2022 but has faced numerous legal obstacles and has not succeeded in deporting anyone.
On Wednesday evening, Sunak announced an alternative approach, stating that he would seek a formal treaty with Rwanda. However, this move would undergo additional legal examination. Additionally, he proposed introducing "emergency legislation" that would empower the UK parliament to independently designate Rwanda as a safe nation.
The judges concluded that Rwanda could not be deemed a secure destination for asylum seekers contrary to the government's claims. This is because there exists a potential danger of forcing legitimate refugees to return to the nations they had escaped from. Consequently, this ruling has prompted demands from the right-wing faction of the Conservative Party to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This possibility has been a contentious issue within the government, creating divisions between center-minded individuals and those on the right-wing of the ruling party in Britain.
Sunak did not support the aforementioned appeals on Wednesday, but he implied that he would contemplate such action if a revised policy was obstructed. "I am willing to modify our regulations and reassess our international alliances to eliminate the hindrances impeding our progress," he stated. "I will not permit a foreign court to impede these flights."
Protesters waited outside the Supreme Court ahead of Wednesday's ruling.
Leon Neal/Getty Images
In their ruling, the judges stated that there is strong evidence to suggest that if asylum seekers were returned to Rwanda, they would be at significant risk of being mistreated. This is due to Rwanda's flawed system of handling asylum claims, its track record of human rights abuses, and its failure to comply with non-refoulement agreements in the past. As a result, the UK government cannot guarantee the safety and fair consideration of asylum claims for these individuals.
The British government recently criticized Rwanda for various human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, and torture. On Wednesday, Sunak informed lawmakers that a new treaty with Rwanda was in progress, acknowledging that the ruling was not the desired outcome. However, extensive planning had been undertaken in the previous months to address all possible scenarios, emphasizing their unwavering commitment to preventing illegal immigration via boats.
A political fight erupts
More immediately, Sunak must work to navigate the battle within the Conservative Party that has been brewing for months and erupted following Wednesdays ruling.
The Supreme Court clarified that the ECHR is not the sole convention taken into account when considering the policy, emphasizing that other international treaties and UK legislation provide protection for refugees and asylum seekers against deportation without safety assurances. However, despite this, many right-wing members of the party have been planning to advocate for abandoning the ECHR if the court blocked the policy. This would be a significant international withdrawal that has been strongly opposed by moderates, who were quick to issue ultimatums to Sunak following the court's ruling.
On Wednesday, Suella Braverman, the former home secretary who was dismissed on Monday due to a series of scandals, led the charge for these demands, calling for "emergency legislation" and expressing on X (formerly known as Twitter) that "there is no possibility of controlling illegal migration within the current legal framework."
Britain's Home Secretary Suella Braverman speaks on immigration at the American Enterprise Institute on Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)
Kevin Wolf/AP
UN rebukes British home secretary over attack on asylum system
Conservative Party Deputy Chairman Lee Anderson suggested that Britain should disregard the laws and immediately send planes to Rwanda, according to PA Media.
In a strongly-worded letter addressed to Sunak after her dismissal, Braverman criticized the prime minister's unrealistic approach of believing that he can navigate this situation without causing any offense. She noted that his failure to establish a viable alternative plan for tackling illegal migration is a consequence of his overly optimistic mindset.
Braverman labelled Sunak as uncertain, weak, and devoid of the essential leadership qualities that our country requires. She also censured him for his reluctance to withdraw from the ECHR in order to successfully implement the Rwanda plan, clearly demarcating the divisions within the party and potentially leading to an internal strife akin to a civil war.
The outcome of the trial was intensely observed, both in London and around the globe, as Britain's plan was seen as a crucial evaluation of the practicality of relocating asylum processing outside the country.
The plan had faced opposition from long-standing humanitarian groups, who now celebrated the ruling. Care4Calais, an organization that provides support to refugees in the UK and France, stated that the judgment would finally put an end to this disgraceful chapter in UK history. Medecins Sans Frontiers also expressed their satisfaction with the ruling, considering it to be a positive outcome.
The opportunity for the new Home Secretary lies in abandoning this unnecessarily harsh strategy and prioritizing the establishment of secure pathways for individuals in search of refuge in the United Kingdom. This approach remains the sole practical and compassionate method of diminishing the number of individuals who perilously venture through the Channel.
A costly failure
Wednesday's ruling unequivocally crushed the government's policy on multiple fronts, with far-reaching implications that will be felt for a considerable period. This judgment reignites the contentious debate surrounding illegal migration, coinciding with the approaching British general election, and sets the stage for a bitter round of Conservative infighting.
In response to a growing number of perilous small boat crossings conducted by asylum seekers across the English Channel, the Rwanda plan was introduced. This plan aimed to reverse the rapidly increasing trend of such crossings, a commitment Sunak has made.
Under the policy, asylum seekers would be transferred to Rwanda for the processing of their asylum claims. If their claims are approved, they would be permitted to stay in Rwanda, while those whose claims are rejected would be repatriated to their countries of origin.
The Manston holding centre for migrants. Small boat crossings to the UK has soared in recent years, a trend that Sunak has pledged to reverse.
Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images
The court deemed the concerns regarding the Rwandan asylum processing system and its human rights record to be significant, leading to the ruling of the policy as illegal. This policy, introduced by former Home Secretary Priti Patel, garnered support from her successor, Suella Braverman. However, Braverman was dismissed from her position on Monday following a series of controversies.
However, the proposal has proven to be an expensive and highly visible disappointment for three consecutive prime ministers. According to the BBC, the UK has made a payment of £140 million ($177 million) to the Rwandan government for this endeavor.
To date, no flights have actually occurred. Last year, the inaugural flight to Rwanda was canceled at the last minute due to an intervention by the European Court of Human Rights. Subsequently, extensive legal disputes further caused delays and setbacks to the project.
Sunak fired Braverman (right) and brought back Cameron (left) to the Cabinet, in a remarkable reshuffle.
Getty Images
Suella Braverman, Britains hardline home secretary, fired as ex-PM David Cameron makes surprise return to government
Conservative MP Natalie Elphicke, representing Dover where the majority of small boat crossings to England conclude, declared on Wednesday that this ruling marks the effective termination of the policy. She underscored that no planes will be departing and emphasized the need to progress forward.
This year, the influx of undocumented individuals entering Europe and subsequently journeying to Britain has escalated. Factors such as conflict, global inequality, and climate change have intensified a migrant crisis throughout the continent.
The beleaguered Conservative Party has made opposing illegal migration a central focus in its attempt to appeal to voters. Recent polls suggest that the party's support has declined and it is at risk of losing the general election next year. Critics have accused key figures like Sunak and Braverman of employing inflammatory rhetoric towards illegal migrants in their quest for votes.
Opposition leader Keir Starmer criticized (Sunak) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, reiterating that he had been warned multiple times about the eventual failure of this strategy. Starmer described it as another attempt by the Tories to gain popularity through a shallow tactic. Despite the warnings, (Sunak) decided to fully commit to it, exposing himself to the consequences. Starmer noted that (Sunak) would have no choice but to return to his office, reconsider his approach, and begin afresh.
