Having already spent £240 million on the Rwanda asylum plan, the UK government remains committed to ensuring the migration ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ between the UK and Rwanda can be put into action.

Attempting to ‘Stop the Boats’ (in the words of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak), if successful, would be a partnership between the UK and Rwanda that aims to reduce illegal immigration across the Channel to the UK, by redirecting the migrants who arrive via boat to Rwanda instead.

However, on the 15th of November 2023 the UK Supreme Court ruled that the UK Government’s Rwanda asylum plan was ‘unlawful’. The ruling was based on the asylum plan being liable to ‘refoulement’ in international law– the concept of refugees being sent to a country in which they are subject to the possibility of degrading or inhumane treatment. Seen as the ‘cornerstone’ of the UNHCR 1951 Refugee Convention, article 33 states that refugees must not be sent to a country in which they face serious challenges to their human rights. 

The UK is also a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), prohibiting inhumane treatment and torture, as well as discrimination and the oppression of the freedom of religion and thought – binding the UK to accountability for human rights.

Unable to guarantee that migrants sent to Rwanda would not then be returned to countries in which they faced serious threats to their human rights, the Memorandum was therefore ruled as ‘unlawful’ and in violation of international law.

Undeterred in light of this ruling, the UK Government announced the UK-Rwanda Treaty on the 5th of December 2023, swiftly followed by the introduction of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Migration) Bill one day later. The Bill, if ratified by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, will define Rwanda as a ‘safe country’ under UK domestic law. It defines a ‘safe country’ as one which will not return people to another country in ‘contravention of any international law’ – upholding an agreement that refugees will remain in Rwanda or if returned to other countries, will not be placed in a situation which threatens their human rights. The Bill further dictates that this recognition of Rwanda as a ‘safe country’ will remain unaffected by international law – denying other nations or international organisations the ability to question the validity of Rwanda as a ‘safe country’.

If the Bill is passed, this will leave us with the question of just how safe is Rwanda for its prospective migrants?

In its constitution, Rwanda prohibits discrimination on the grounds of ‘ethnic origin, tribe, clan, colour, sex, region, social origin, religion or faith, opinion, economic status, culture, language, social status, physical or mental disability’. The prohibition of discrimination on such wide-ranging grounds is comforting to see for a state potentially about to gain the status of a ‘safe country’. However, despite this constitutional commitment to human rights, there are concerns of numerous human rights breaches in Rwanda, both past and ongoing.

Following the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, leading to approximately 800 000 civilian deaths, international organisation Human Rights Watch has assessed the protection and violation of human rights in Rwanda.

A letter written by Human Rights Watch to the UK Home Secretary in June 2022 outlines a list of ongoing human rights violations in Rwanda which dispute its credibility as a ‘safe country’.

Since 2006, vulnerable groups such as homeless people and children, as well as sex workers have been detained in Gikondo by Rwandan authorities. Those perceived to be ‘delinquents’ are detained, a fact which was recognised by the UK Government, but disregarded as an event of 2020 rather than the present day. 

In 2018, Congolese refugees from the war between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda were shot at and killed during a peaceful protest against the reduction of their food rations. A clear violation of the freedom of political expression, it is clear that previous refugees in Rwanda have experienced state violence and an encroachment of their human rights.

Perhaps most concerning is the UK Government’s current and open acknowledgement of state discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community in Rwanda, contradicting its own constitution. Covered under the UK Government’s travel advice for Rwanda, the Foreign Office recognises that despite homosexuality being legal in Rwanda, ‘LGBT individuals can experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities’.

It is clear to see that Rwanda is not as safe as the UK government states. The documentation of present-day human rights abuses is alarming, and equally alarming is the willingness of the UK Government to endorse a country in which such abuses are taking place.

If the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Migration) Bill is passed, it is highly possible that, as the UK Supreme Court feared, refugees sent to Rwanda will face serious challenges to their human rights.