Despite Changing Leaders, the UK’s Determination to Send Asylum Seekers to Rwanda

In recent weeks the UK’s insistence on its plan to send asylum seekers who arrive on its soil to Rwanda has dominated the global agenda.

On 4 April 2022 Boris Johnson signed the “Rwanda Plan,” which envisaged deporting some asylum seekers who reached the UK and settling them in Rwanda. The plan was widely condemned by the opposition and by human-rights organisations. In November 2023 the UK High Court ruled that deporting irregular migrants to Rwanda was unlawful.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pushed ahead with a new agreement. Under the Rwanda (Security) (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the government introduced legislation designed to override legal obstacles and to designate Rwanda as a “safe country.” According to this scheme, asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be processed under Rwandan law and would not be permitted to return to the UK.

Many human-rights groups worldwide — and particularly organisations in the UK, where asylum applications have grown rapidly in recent years — have criticised the policy. According to British media reports, the Home Office initially identified only 150–200 asylum seekers for transfer to Rwanda, and only the Hope Hostel in Kigali was prepared to host them. (Until two years ago the hostel sheltered victims of the Rwandan genocide; after a visit by former UK Home Secretary Priti Patel in 2022, remaining residents were evacuated with no alternative accommodation provided.)

Unable to stop irregular migration, the UK appears to be following Australia’s example: since the 2000s Canberra attempted to send asylum seekers to Nauru and to Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. In fact, the plane the UK had chartered to fly asylum seekers to Kigali — scheduled to depart on 14 June 2022 — was prevented from taking off after the European Court of Human Rights raised concerns that passengers might not be able to access fair asylum procedures in Rwanda. The issue went through the UK courts three times, and on 15 November the High Court unanimously confirmed that the Rwanda Plan was unlawful.

Yet Sunak remained determined. In December 2023 he tabled the “Rwanda Security Bill,” a legislative attempt to override the country’s highest court decision. The new agreement was presented as an enhanced version of the original Rwanda Plan, including a Rwandan commitment not to deport refugees back to their countries of origin. By declaring Rwanda a “safe country” in law, Sunak sought to address the central human-rights objection — namely whether the country could fairly and safely process asylum claims.

Other states such as Albania, Botswana and Ghana were reportedly considered as destinations, but Rwanda was the final choice. Cristiano d’Orsi, a lecturer in international law at the University of Johannesburg, says Rwanda — which hosts an estimated 127,163 refugees and asylum seekers — was preferred because it “has experience as a host country and is seen as hospitable.”

Since taking office, Sunak has made the Rwanda bill one of the most prominent items of his political agenda. The proposal has provoked heated debate within the UK and has kept the issue of asylum and migration high on Europe’s agenda.

The UK’s decision to send irregular migrants to Rwanda reflects a punitive approach that treats migrants as a problem to be exported rather than people in need of protection. There is also widespread concern that the plan could become a model for other European countries.

Why is Rwanda participating?

On 21 March, 91 refugees arrived in Rwanda from Libya. These men and women had been stranded in Libya while trying to reach Europe; they came from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan and South Sudan. This group was the 17th evacuated from Libya to Rwanda under the Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM), which has transferred refugees since 2019.

Rwandan journalist Joseph Rwagatare reports that none of the refugees who have arrived in Rwanda to date have reported serious ill-treatment, abuse or safety concerns.

Although Rwanda still carries the tragic legacy of the 1994 genocide, it is also one of Africa’s few countries to have achieved a degree of economic success. The money offered by the UK therefore has tangible value for Kigali. Being officially designated a “safe country” is also presented as an opportunity for Rwanda to bolster its international image as a rights-respecting, democratic state.

Under the plan announced by Boris Johnson in April 2022, the UK has paid Rwanda some £240 million. Over five years, the UK has agreed to pay up to £150,000 per person sent to Rwanda. (That cost is estimated to be about £63,000 more per person than keeping them in the UK.)

The UK says the scheme aims to deter people-smuggling and small-boat crossings. Critics, however, emphasise that the plan fails to address the root causes forcing people to flee and instead compels them into dangerous journeys in search of safety.

Choosing Africa as a destination for unwanted populations is not without precedent. In the early 20th century Europe explored resettlement schemes for Jewish people in places such as Uganda, Angola, Madagascar and Ethiopia — efforts that ultimately failed.

Israel also signed an agreement with Rwanda between 2013 and 2018 to remove African migrants; that arrangement was later declared unlawful by Israel’s Supreme Court and canceled.

For now Rwanda appears focused on the short-term financial gains. But as refugee numbers grow, can the country manage the shifting domestic dynamics? With unemployment above 15% last year, can Rwanda provide sufficient work and housing for those the UK sends under its funding arrangements?

Even those who believe the plan will not deter desperate people — those who would risk the sea to reach safety — agree that this approach to asylum is profoundly inhumane and that it will remain a subject of international debate for a long time.

Sources:

  This article was originially published in Independent Türkçe, on May 1, 2024.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The West’s New Exile Route: Refugees to Africa

For centuries, Africa has been more than a site of exploitation for Europe — it has also served as a dumping ground for the unwanted. France sent its convicts and political exiles to Gabon and Djibouti. Spain relocated those it expelled from Cuba to the island of Bioko in Equatorial Guinea. Portugal deported criminals and “undesirable” individuals (the degredados ) to Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea. Thus, the continent functioned both as a field of plunder for the West’s underground wealth and as a prison for those it deemed unworthy of living in Europe. Despite the passage of time, the Western mindset has hardly changed. Today, electronic waste, discarded computers, and piles of second-hand clothes no one wants are still shipped to Africa — this time under the label of “aid.” History repeats itself. Once again, the West is seeking ways to offload what it perceives as excess — undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, and those it stigmatizes as “criminals” or “barbarians” — back ont...
Read more

How the UAE is Enveloping Africa Through Ports

 In recent years, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has drawn significant attention with its rapidly expanding economic, diplomatic, and military presence in Africa. While projecting an image as a modern, progressive, and investment-friendly Arab nation, this Gulf state’s activities reveal deeper contradictions. From supporting the Rapid Support Forces—the perpetrators of genocide in Sudan—thereby destabilizing the region and illegally exporting gold from the chaos, the UAE has built its influence on profound inconsistencies. This marks a fundamental shift in Emirati foreign policy toward the continent. Following its independence in 1971, the UAE’s relations with Africa, initially based on religious and geographic proximity, evolved into a purely strategic and interest-driven approach as the economic clout of Abu Dhabi and Dubai grew. Despite formal sovereignty, the UAE’s ruling elite long acted as a pro-Western proxy. Its current role in Sudan’s chaos is a clear and ruthless contin...
Read more

The Normalization of Atrocity: The Silent Cry of the Sudanese People

Throughout history, the African continent has witnessed countless wars, massacres, and genocides. While the crimes committed by European colonizers are now learned through books, archives, and documentaries, today’s tragedies in Sudan, Congo, and other African nations unfold before our eyes—streamed live on our screens. Yet little has changed. The wars raging for years in Sudan and Congo are often reduced to a few superficial news briefs, barely making a dent in our collective conscience. On social media, they appear only briefly, slipping into the “explore” pages of a handful of users. In newspapers, almost no one deems these tragedies “worthy” of attention. The empathy shown for Gaza gives hope; but how can we explain our silence toward Africa? Have we become so conditioned to seeing Africa through the images of “hunger, famine, poverty, and endless wars” that every tragedy there now feels “ordinary”? No African mother gives birth knowing her child will die of hunger; no fath...
Read more