Lawyers representing the UK home secretary have reassured the Supreme Court that the UK can have confidence in Rwanda’s ability to provide asylum seekers with humane treatment. The lawyers are attempting to overturn an earlier ruling from the Court of Appeal, which blocked the UK government’s plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, due to concerns over the country’s human rights record. The UK government’s policy would see those who come to the UK without authorisation from a safe country and seek asylum, sent to Rwanda instead. The hearing is occurring at the Supreme Court, and the fates of the UK scheme and the 10 migrants resisting it, hang in the balance.
Sir James Eadie, representing the home secretary, stated Rwanda would want the agreement between the countries to work, given the country’s reputational and financial incentives to treat asylum seekers well. He further noted that even if there were genuine concerns, extensive monitoring had been implemented. Under the proposed arrangements, a government official would be permanently stationed in Rwanda, there would be independent monitoring of each migrant’s situation, and the UK would receive detailed written commitments as part of the scheme.
The Court of Appeal ruled in June 2023 that the UK’s entire Rwanda asylum scheme was unlawful, following several earlier stages of legal battles. The UK government’s lawyers have filed an appeal at the Supreme Court because they contend the Court of Appeal was not in a position to conclude that Rwanda’s asylum system was so flawed that it could send back migrants to their home countries where they face potential mistreatment. Critics of the Rwanda plan have previously raised concerns over the country’s human rights record and will reiterate them at the hearing.
The UK government states that sending some asylum seekers to Rwanda will deter criminal people-smuggling gangs, but officials estimate it could be more expensive than dealing with the migrants in the UK. Although the UK policy has been in limbo since it was halted 16 months earlier, the fate of this program and those who may be subject to it, is still being decided
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More