During a Supreme Court battle over the fate of the flagship asylum plan, the British government argued that Rwanda is a safe country to deport illegal immigrants and put an end to dangerous Channel crossings. Rishi Sunak’s lawyers faced off against left-wing campaigners in a three-day hearing to determine the legality of the plan. The government argued that although Rwanda may be "less attractive" than Britain to live, it is still a safe country. The Home Office barrister, Sir James Eadie KC, praised Rwanda as a "friendly foreign state" that is fully committed to its part of the deal worth £140 million.
Concerns over potential deportation and persecution
Last summer, a High Court judgement ruling that Rwanda was safe was overturned by the Court of Appeal due to an absence of guarantees that the Kigali government would not later deport migrants back to their home countries, where they could face persecution. However, Sir James Eadie emphasized that there were strong incentives for Rwanda to honor the deal and suggested that effective measures need to be taken to deter migrants from undertaking dangerous journeys.
Opposing views on Rwanda's suitability
Lawyers representing asylum seekers argued in court that Rwanda is a highly autocratic and repressive state that imprisons, tortures, and even murders those it considers to be opponents. They criticized the Rwandan asylum system as being deficient and marked by unfairness, arbitrariness, and capacity issues.
Potential challenges from the European Court of Human Rights
Even if the Supreme Court approves the plan, the British government may still face a battle with the European Court of Human Rights. In June 2022, the first attempted flight to deport migrants to Rwanda was grounded by the Strasbourg judges following a last-minute injunction. This interference has led to calls from many Conservative MPs to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
