Despite the findings of the Supreme Court, the government is compelling judges to treat Rwanda as a safe country.
The passage of the Rwanda Bill late last night, after a parliamentary showdown ended between the Commons and the Lords, has been met with condemnation and outrage by a number of human rights groups.
Some have described it as a ‘national disgrace’ while others slammed it as cruel and inhumane.
Sunak had made stopping small boat crossings across the channel a major priority, with his Rwanda Bill a key part of his plans in doing so. The Prime Minister says that the first flights removing asylum seekers who arrive illegally to the UK to the east African country are due to take off in 10-12 weeks time.
So why are human rights groups condemning the legislation and why are they concerned?
Rwanda is not a safe country, Supreme Court rules
Among the major reasons for objecting to the Rwanda scheme is that Rwanda was not considered by the Supreme Court to be a safe country, due to inadequacies in Rwanda’s asylum system, which mean that the Rwandan authorities were not able to provide accurate and fair asylum decisions.
Human rights commissioner, Michael O’Flaherty, was also cited in the Guardian warning that the UK was prohibited from subjecting, even indirectly, people to “refoulement” – the act of forcing a refugee or asylum seeker to a country or territory where he or she is likely to face persecution – including under article 3 of the European convention on human rights, under the refugee convention, and under “a range of other international instruments”.
Despite the findings of the Supreme Court, the government is compelling judges to treat Rwanda as a safe country.
Disregarding domestic and international law
The legislation also means that while the ECHR, the Refugee Convention, and other provisions of international and relevant national law continue to apply to the UK, they cannot be applied to the question of whether Rwanda is safe.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has warned that the legislation is fundamentally incompatible with the UK’s human rights obligations. It states the ‘Bill would erode protection for human rights provided by the Human Rights Act, contravene rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights and fall short of the UK’s commitments under international treaties, the Committee warns’.
They further stated: “Human rights are universal. The Bill undermines this key principle by denying the protections guaranteed under the Human Rights Act for a particular group. It would remove almost all protections in the Human Rights Act for individuals being removed to Rwanda.”
‘Genuine refugees would be at risk of being returned to their home countries, where they could face harm’
The Supreme Court has also raised concerns that genuine refugees would be at risk of being returned to their home countries, where they could face harm.
Victims of modern slavery, for example, who entered the UK irregularly will be detained, possibly removed to Rwanda without access to first responders.
As Hilary Benn stated last year this bill ‘says to any refugee or asylum seeker who gets here from anywhere by any means – but who does not have an entry visa – ‘you are a criminal’, even though the Government knows that between 60%-70% of those crossing the Channel in boats have genuine claims.’
Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.