Lawyers for the United Nations’ Refugee Agency have accused Rwanda’s asylum system of being so weak that it is biased against many individuals who could be genuine refugees. The warning has come amid a UK government appeal against its controversial plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda. The Court of Appeal ruled this scheme unlawful in June, but ministers insist that it meets the legal test for treating people humanely.
The UNHCR’s barristers told five Supreme Court justices that there was no evidence to suggest that Rwanda had improved its treatment of asylum seekers, even though it provided the British government with detailed assurances of fair treatment. Consequently, the UNHCR said that Rwanda couldn’t meet the complex legal test of a safe country. The UNHCR went on to say that the key institutions and practices behind the country’s asylum decisions are still operating despite the deal with the UK.
Laura Dubinsky KC, for the UN agency, argued that while ministers in Kigali may have signed the migration partnership in good faith, security officials deciding the fate of would-be refugees were operating according to their own rules. On the other hand, lawyers for the UK home secretary have told the Supreme Court that Rwanda can be trusted to deal with asylum seekers humanely. Sir James Eadie KC stated that Rwanda has every reason to ensure the arrangements work, and that there would be permanent monitoring to ensure that it did.
The UK government’s plans to send some small boat migrants to Rwanda have been the subject of controversy since their announcement in April 2022. The UN has highlighted its ongoing concerns about the suitability of Rwanda’s asylum system, stating that it discriminates against legitimate refugees. The Supreme Court has yet to make a ruling on the UK government’s appeal
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More