The Safety of Rwanda Act: an act of cruelty

On 25 April 2024, the much-heralded Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act came into force. The preamble states that it is ‘An Act to make provisions about the removal of certain migrants to the Republic of Rwanda’.

In fact, the Act is about much more than that

In April 2022, the government announced its intention to remove some asylum seekers to Rwanda for their refugee claims to be decided there, irrespective of the fact that they have no connection to Rwanda. Its policy intention was to ensure the UK had control over its own borders and to remove asylum seekers who arrived in the UK by unlawful means. It is seen as a deterrent to those seeking to cross to the UK. There is no evidence to support claims of a deterrent effect. In reality, the policy has always been ideologically driven.

In July 2022, the Home Office decided to remove a number of people to Rwanda which was stopped by the European Court of Human Rights. In response, Priti Patel made an oral statement in the House of Commons reiterating the government’s belief that the Rwanda policy was a key plank in the UK’s border control.

The Rwanda policy was subject to domestic court challenges culminating in the Supreme Court decision to the effect that Rwanda was not a safe country, effectively again putting a stop to any removals.

The response of the government was swift: it entered into a new Treaty with Rwanda in order to declare it safe, and introduced the Rwanda Bill to change the law to its own liking.

The UK withdrew from a Europe wide agreement aimed at ensuring some sharing of responsibility for those seeking asylum in Europe, the Dublin Regulation, following Brexit. This leaves the UK isolated at a time when the numbers of those fleeing persecution continues to rise because of conflict and/or persecution, including the conflict in Sudan and the resumption of Taliban control in Afghanistan. Sadly, international conflicts/humanitarian crises and the persecution of individuals because of their identity, beliefs or views continue to prevail and, apart from the scheme introduced for Ukrainians fleeing the war there, the government has not introduced any proper routes to safety for refugees. They have instead focused on deterring arrivals.

The Act is startling for a number of reasons:

1. It requires all decision makers to treat Rwanda as a safe country conclusively, including courts. They must do so as the Act tells them it is safe;
2. It introduces unrealistic short time scales for any representations or challenge to be made to the courts and so sets up unfair procedures; and
3. It seeks to dictate to the courts how to approach any such challenges made by anyone who is subject to removal to Rwanda.

It is startling for another reason. It is cruel.

The UK has been a signatory of the Refugee Convention since 1954. There have been increasingly hostile political attacks on the Convention, on those seeking asylum and on their representatives. The Rwanda Act falls squarely within that framework. The Convention is no longer held up as a sign of the UK’s commitment to those in need of refuge. Its humanitarian purpose is ignored. Instead, the Convention is portrayed as a tool being used improperly by those arriving here to claim asylum.

Most of all the Act will cause real hardship, anxiety and distress to those who have claimed asylum here and are now subject to lengthy delays, whilst decisions are made as to whether an individual will or will not have their case decided in the UK or some will be removed to Rwanda. It seems that there are currently 52,000 people whose asylum claims were paused whilst the government put through its Rwanda Bill. Even on the government’s own case, Rwanda has agreed to take only small number of people and the numbers are not certain.

The Act runs to 11 sections. It is short. It will though, undoubtedly, generate much litigation and the arguments over removal to Rwanda are far from over. The government has confirmed that there will be no removals to Rwanda until after the General Election. It will be a question for the new government to decide whether to continue with the policy.