“They are dividing a society. They are making us feel like refugees are the scum”
The government’s attempts to get the controversial Rwanda scheme off the ground have been dominating the news cycle this week. As such, it was a major topic of debate on this week’s edition of the BBC‘s flagship political debate show Question Time.
Hashi Mohamed – a barrister and author – appeared on the show, which was broadcast from Peterborough. During the show, he condemned the government’s Rwanda scheme in response to a question from the audience which asked: ‘Is the Rwanda plan worth all the money, time and resignations?’
Mohamed began his response by saying: “First things first, it’s important to acknowledge that people are really concerned about the boat crossings and so many people are dying and something has to be done. I think any rational person agrees on that level.”
He then went on to point out that a similar scheme to that proposed by the Tories has been in place between the Israeli and Rwandan governments, something absent from much of the conversation about the proposed plan.
Mohamed said: “Two years ago, I travelled to Dresden, the German town, and I met an Eritrean man who had been deported from Israel to Rwanda. He’d been paid to go to Rwanda. Rwanda had a reciprocal arrangement with Israel to take refugees.
“When he got there, the Rwandans said: ‘You don’t need to stay. There’s the door.’ And he used the money that he was given to make his way back – that treacherous journey – and he made his way to Dresden where he sought asylum again.
The Rwanda deal was signed when Priti Patel was home secretary. Rwanda visit April 14, 2022. Image: UK Home Office.
Before publishing this article unaltered, I draw your attention to these excerpts:
…
It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.
…
This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.
But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.
…
So it would appear that UK is not going to be sending refugees to Rwanda despite Rishi Sunak and Conservative claims that it will.
Supreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next
The UK supreme court has unanimously ruled that the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.
Upholding an earlier decision by the court of appeal, the supreme court found that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda may be at risk of refoulement – being sent back to a country where they may be persecuted, tortured or killed.
The courts cited extensive evidence from the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) that Rwanda does not respect the principle of non-refoulement – a legal obligation. The UNHCR’s evidence questioned the ability of Rwandan authorities to fairly assess asylum claims. It also raised concerns about human rights violations by Rwandan authorities, including not respecting non-refoulement with other asylum seekers.
It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.
The ruling is another blow to the government’s promise to “stop the boats”. And since the Rwanda plan is at the heart of its new Illegal Migration Act, the government will need to reconsider its asylum policies. This is further complicated by Conservative party infighting and the firing of home secretary Suella Braverman, just two days before the ruling.
How did we get here?
For years, the UK government has been seeking to reduce small boat arrivals to the UK. In April 2022, the UK and Rwanda signed an agreement making it possible for the UK to deport some people seeking asylum in Britain to Rwanda, without their cases being heard in the UK. Instead, they would have their cases decided by Rwandan authorities, to be granted (or rejected) asylum in Rwanda.
While the Rwanda plan specifically was found to be unlawful, the government could, in theory, replicate this in other countries so long as they are considered “safe” for asylum seekers.
The government has not yet sent anyone to Rwanda. The first flight was prevented from taking off by the European court of human rights in June 2022, which said that British courts needed to consider all human rights issues before starting deportations.
A UK high court then decided in December 2022 that the Rwanda plan was lawful.
Catch up on our other coverage of the Rwanda plan:
Ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania challenged the high court ruling, with the support of the charity Asylum Aid. Their claim was about whether Rwanda meets the legal threshold for being a safe country for asylum seekers.
The court of appeal said it was not and that asylum seekers risked being sent back to their home countries (where they could face persecution), when in fact they may have a good claim for asylum.
The government has since passed the Illegal Migration Act. The law now states that all asylum seekers arriving irregularly (for example, in small boats) must be removed to a safe third country. But now that the Rwanda deal has been ruled unlawful, there are no other countries that have said they would take asylum seekers from the UK.
What happens next?
Former Home Secretary Suella ‘Sue-Ellen’ Braverman continued with the Rwanda policy.
It is clear that the government’s asylum policies will need rethinking. Should another country now be designated as a safe country and different arrangements put in place, these will probably be subject to further legal challenges, including in the European court of human rights and in British courts.
This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.
But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.
The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has said that he is working on a new treaty with Rwanda and is prepared to change domestic laws to “do whatever it takes to stop the boats”.
The UK is not the only country to attempt to off-shore asylum processing. Germany and Italy have recently been considering finding new safe third countries to accept asylum seekers as well.
But ensuring these measures comply with human rights obligations is complicated. International law requires states to provide sanctuary to those fleeing persecution or risk to their lives. As this ruling shows, the UK is not going to find an easy way out of these obligations.
Toufique Hossain, director of public law and immigration at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, (centre) with his legal team outside the Supreme Court in London. Picture date: Wednesday November 15, 2023.
PITILESS Tory plans to deport refugees to Rwanda were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court today, plunging Rishi Sunak’s government deeper into chaos.
The court determined that Rwanda was not a safe destination for asylum-seekers and that there was a high risk of them being returned to their country of origin to be tortured or worse, thus torpedoing what is a flagship Tory policy.
The defiant Prime Minister pledged to fight on to stop destitute refugees crossing the Channel, responding to the judgement by asserting that “illegal migration destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year. We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so.”
He later claimed that the judges had agreed that the “principle of removing asylum-seekers to a safe third country is lawful” and told MPs he was ready to “revisit” UK laws to block migration if necessary and to seek a fresh treaty with Rwanda.
…
Labour ducked the moral issues raised by the policy, with leader Sir Keir Starmer and shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper focusing instead on the waste of money and time involved in the failed Rwanda policy.
The judges’ decision was, however, welcomed by a wide range of human rights campaigners.
Amnesty International’s Sacha Deshmukh said: “The government must now draw a line under a disgraceful chapter in the UK’s political history.
Conditions at a processing centre for asylum seekers who arrive on the Kent coast in small boats have been called unacceptable in a report from a watchdog that monitors the centre.
Representatives from the Independent Monitoring Boards (IMB) made a total of 85 visits in 2022 to three Home Office processing centres for small boat arrivals – Manston, Western Jet Foil and Kent Intake Unit – for its 2022 annual report into short-term holding facilities on the Kent coast. All three centres hit the headlines last year due to a variety of scandals and serious incidents.
…
The report adds: “At Manston detained individuals were accommodated in marquees which we would describe as at best basic, at worst unsanitary and unacceptable.”
Western Jet Foil in Dover was subjected to a firebombing attack last November by Andrew Leak, 66, who police said was motivated by extreme rightwing terrorist ideology.
Kent Intake Unit, also in Dover, where lone child asylum seekers and families are processed after arriving on small boats, became embroiled in a row in July of this year after the immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, was reported to have asked for cheerful cartoon murals for children to be painted over because they were “too welcoming”.
Over 140 academic lawyers have signed an open letter to home secretary Suella Braverman calling for an end to public criticism of lawyers.
It comes after media coverage criticising and attacking a Leigh Day partner, Jacqueline McKenzie, and other immigration practitioners.
The letter addressed to the home secretary expressed ‘solidarity’ with McKenzie and accused members of the government of ‘attacking lawyers for advising and representing their clients.
‘It is shocking that the Conservative Party has compiled a “dossier” on Ms Jacqueline McKenzie, a reputable and effective solicitor, and that a media outlet obtained a copy and published the contents,’ the letter reads. ‘We are additionally concerned because Ms McKenzie is a Black woman. Those responsible must have known that inviting negative media attention would expose her to misogynistic and racist threats from some members of the public.’
