U.K.-Rwanda Deal on Asylum Seekers

Why in the News

• The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has unanimously held the deal between the U.K. and Rwanda on transfer of asylum seekers as unlawful.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Why in the News?
• Background
• Reason Behind U.K.-Rwanda Deal
• Why did the U.K. Choose Rwanda?
• Why did the Judiciary Ruled the Deal Unlawful?
• U.K. Government’s Response

Background

• The Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) was announced in April 2022 by the UK’s former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
• The objective of the deal is to “create a mechanism” for the transfer of asylum seekers not considered legal by the UK into Rwanda.
• According to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two nations, the U.K. will screen asylum seeker applications and arrange for safe transport to Rwanda.
• On arrival of the refugees, Rwanda is obliged to provide accommodation for every individual and protect them from ill-treatment and refoulement.
• Rwanda will be the sole authority to recognise or not recognise the refugee status of an individual.
• If an individual is not recognised, they will be moved to their country of origin.

Reason Behind U.K.-Rwanda Deal

• Cracking down on illegal migration and bringing down net migration numbers has been one of the core policies of successive Prime Ministers of the U.K.
• The government said the policy would deter people arriving in the UK through "illegal, dangerous or unnecessary methods", such as on small boats across the English Channel.
• More than 45,700 people used this route to come to the UK in 2022, the highest figure since records began.
  • Significantly, the government is in the process of adding India to a “safe country” list to facilitate the removal of its citizens who arrive illegally.
  • A total of 683 Indians arrived in the U.K. via illegal Channel crossings in 2022 and Indian citizens were the third largest group of asylum seekers in the U.K. as per data from the first half of this year.

Why did the U.K. Choose Rwanda?

• Rwanda offers three solutions for those sent out by the U.K.:
  • It facilitates returning them to their country of origin;
  • Helps in moving them to a third country; or
  • Helps them settle in Rwanda with decent housing, access to universal health insurance and the right to work.
• The U.K. will bear the accommodation and transit costs. Rwanda was not the first country to be approached.
  • The government had paid the Rwandan government £140m for the scheme.
• Former Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to persuade Tanzania for asylum claims but failed.
• Britain’s colonial history aligns with the current scenario where it used to move particular sections of migrant labour to certain territories.
• The MEDP arrangement resonates with this colonial scheme of dispersing refugees.

Why did the Judiciary Ruled the Deal Unlawful?

• The Supreme Court of the country unanimously ruled the deal as unlawful& overturned the High Court’s decision on the grounds of two major issues:
  • One, the Court of Appeal’s entitlement to intervene in the High Court’s ruling, and
  • Two, if the Court of Appeal had looked into the real risk for asylum seekers when moved to Rwanda.
• On the first, the Supreme Court found the High Court decision to be “erred,” due to its failure to consider the evidence of the risk of refoulement.
  • Under the European Court, it is the U.K.’s responsibility as a removing state to protect the refugee from refoulement and ensure asylum.
  • Instead, the High Court recognised the expertise and promise of Rwanda.
• Second, the Supreme Court found evidence that asylum seekers face a real risk of ill-treatment from refoulement.
  • Rwanda’s track record on human rights and its non­compliance with assurances were taken as instances for considering the real risk of refoulement.
  • While Rwanda has become a key partner of the U.K., the court highlighted the periods of violence in Rwanda since 1994 and how its human rights record was viewed as critical for the ruling.

U.K. Government’s Response

• Responding to the verdict, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that the government had been “planning for all eventualities” and was “completely committed to stopping the boats”.
• He said the court had confirmed that it was not, per se, unlawful to send illegal migrants to a safe third country, suggesting that the government could come up with a country other than Rwanda to send asylum seekers to.

Q1) What is the difference between Refugee and Migrant? 

Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such impediment to return. If they choose to return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government. For individual governments, this distinction is important. Migrants are not protected under international law.

Q2) What is the UN Convention on Refugees?

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention or the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who a refugee is and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum.

Source: U.K. Supreme Court says Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation policy is unlawful | Hindu