Britain’s Supreme Court Rules Government’s Asylum Scheme with Rwanda Unlawful
The Supreme Court of Britain delivered a significant blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government this week, ruling that the proposed scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. The controversial plan was intended to discourage migrants from crossing the Channel from Europe in small boats by sending tens of thousands of asylum seekers to the East African country.
The unanimous decision by the top court declared that Rwanda could not be considered a safe third country for migrants. The scheme was a central part of Sunak’s immigration policy as his government prepares for an upcoming election next year, aiming to address concerns about the high numbers of asylum seekers arriving in small boats.
However, the ruling has sparked controversy within Sunak’s own party, with right-wing lawmakers expressing anger and suggesting that the government should consider withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, the court made it clear that its decision was based on various laws and treaties, not solely on the Convention.
The political significance of the ruling was further magnified after Sunak sacked Interior Minister Suella Braverman, who had been responsible for handling immigration affairs. Following her dismissal, Braverman criticized Sunak for breaking promises on tackling immigration, further adding to the political turmoil surrounding the issue.
Sunak, who has pledged to “stop the boats,” has faced mounting pressure as the number of unauthorized arrivals on the southern English coast continues to rise. The Supreme Court’s decision comes at a time when the issue of immigration remains a prominent and contentious topic in the UK.
In response to the ruling, Sunak emphasized the government’s commitment to halting illegal migration, stating, “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.”
The government’s proposed Rwanda policy, originally developed by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson as part of a 140 million pound deal, was met with widespread criticism and condemnation. The court’s ruling was hailed as a “victory for humanity” by Steve Smith, the chief executive of refugee charity Care4Calais, who described the policy as “cruel and immoral.”
While the court’s decision declared the current scheme unlawful, it also left open the possibility that the policy could be revised and reinstated in the future if the necessary changes are made to eliminate the risk of refoulement.
Subsequently, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government took issue with the conclusion that Rwanda was deemed unsafe for asylum seekers, signaling a potential diplomatic fallout in response to the ruling.
The government’s immigration policy and the Supreme Court’s decision are sure to remain contentious issues as Britain heads into an election year, with the ongoing debate over asylum seeker policies playing a critical role in shaping public opinion and political discourse.
Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Alex Richardson and Kate Holton