The Supreme Court of Britain overturned the contentious plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda on Wednesday, striking a possibly fatal blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s centre piece migration policy and paving the way for the extreme wing of his Conservative party to launch an expected uprising.
The highest court in the United Kingdom dismissed the government’s argument and upheld an earlier appeals court decision that declared the programme illegal, as it has been strongly denounced by humanitarian organisations.
It thwarts a plan to transport illegally arriving asylum seekers from the UK to the country in east Africa. Since its initial announcement in April 2022, the plan has faced numerous court challenges and has not succeeded in deporting any individuals.
The Conservative Party’s right is predicted to demand that Britain withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a move that has been hanging over the government for months and deepened divisions between moderates and populists inside the party’s coalition.
A recent report by the United Nations children’s agency, UNICEF, indicates that nearly 300 children are believed to have perished or gone missing this year while attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa to Europe.
The report highlights the challenges of accurately documenting the true number of casualties, as many shipwrecks either go unrecorded or leave no survivors. Consequently, the actual figure is likely higher than reported.
In response to this alarming situation, UNICEF is advocating for the establishment of more safe and legal pathways for young individuals to seek asylum, as well as improved rescue efforts at sea.
The report emphasizes the need for comprehensive actions to address the underlying causes that compel children to flee their home countries and put their lives at risk.
Addressing this humanitarian crisis requires a multifaceted approach, including providing greater protection for vulnerable children, facilitating access to legal avenues for seeking refuge, and addressing the root causes that drive migration.
In the ongoing legal dispute surrounding the contentious deportation policy to Rwanda, the British government has recently suffered a setback .
The Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of a collective of individuals who arrived in the UK via small boats, as well as an asylum charity, who have contended that the policy is illegal.
A panel consisting of three judges reached a divided decision on whether Rwanda meets the criteria as a “safe third country” for processing UK asylum cases, with two judges determining that it does not. It is anticipated that the government will likely challenge this ruling in the Supreme Court.
According to Human Rights Watch, the UAE arbitrarily detains at least 2,400 Afghan asylum seekers.
The adults and children detained in Abu Dhabi were evacuated from Kabul following the Taliban takeover in August 2021.
HRW said they were living in “cramped, miserable conditions” and “stranded in limbo” with no hope of being resettled.
The UAE denied that conditions were deplorable and stated that it was collaborating with the US to complete the resettlement process.
More than 10,000 other Afghans who were flown to the UAE were reportedly resettled in the United States, Canada, and other countries, while another 70,000 were evacuated directly to the United States before American troops left Kabul.
Following the Taliban takeover, Afghans were flown to Abu Dhabi and housed in two converted apartment complexes known as Emirates Humanitarian City and Tasameem Workers City.
HRW said in a report published on Wednesday that it had spoken to 16 Afghans detained at Emirates Humanitarian City, including eight who had previously worked at some point for US government-affiliated entities or programmes in Afghanistan.
They reported constraints on their freedom of movement, lack of access to fair and effective refugee status determination, lack of adequate access to legal counsel, inadequate education for children, and no psychosocial support.
The detainees also described overcrowding, decaying infrastructure and insect infestations, according to the US-based campaign group.
One unnamed Afghan was quoted as saying that Emirates Humanitarian City was “exactly like a prison”, while another described a “widespread mental health crisis among residents”.
Under international law and UN Refugee Agency guidance, asylum seekers and migrants should not be detained for administrative purposes unless it is necessary and proportional to achieve a legitimate aim, and only in the absence of viable alternatives.
HRW called on the UAE to release the detainees and provide access to fair and efficient processes for determining their status and protection needs.
“Governments should not ignore the shocking plight of these Afghans stranded in limbo in the UAE,” said Joey Shea, the group’s UAE researcher.
“The US government in particular, which co-ordinated the 2021 evacuations and with whom many evacuees worked before the Taliban takeover, should immediately step up and intervene to provide support and protection for these asylum seekers.”
An Emirati official told AFP news agency that the UAE was providing “high-quality housing, sanitation, health, clinical, counselling, education and food services” for the Afghans at Emirates Humanitarian City.
They also said the UAE was continuing to work with US authorities to “resettle the remaining evacuees in a timely manner”.
“We understand that there are frustrations and this has taken longer than intended to complete,” they added.
The US state department said there was an “enduring” US commitment to resettle all eligible Afghans, including those at Emirates Humanitarian City.
Campaigners will now have another chance to argue their case after the court last month affirmed the legality of the government’s plan to deport asylum seekers back to their home country.
The government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was found to be legal by the High Court last month, but it has now allowed an appeal against that decision.
The contentious policy was implemented by Boris Johnson, but his successors have continued to advance it as part of their plans to address small boat crossings in the English Channel.
Campaigners have argued in court that sending people to the country is “a cruel policy that will result in significant human suffering.”
But Home Secretary Suella Braverman said the government was “proud of the ground-breaking agreement”.
In December, Care4Calais, the Public and Commercial Services Union, Detention Action, and eight asylum seekers brought their case to the High Court, along with a second case from Asylum Aid.
Their lawyers argued the plans were unlawful and that Rwanda “tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents”.
But representatives from the Home Office argued the agreement between the UK and the country provided assurances that everyone sent there would have a “safe and effective” refugee status determination procedure.
Lord Justice Lewis ruled the first people who were set to be sent to Rwanda had not had their circumstances “properly considered” by the then-home secretary Priti Patel.
As a result, their cases would be referred back to the current minister, Ms Braverman, “for her to consider afresh”.
However, while he said the home secretary should look at people’s “particular circumstances” before deporting them, he ruled the overall scheme was “consistent with the refugee convention” and therefore lawful.
After today’s ruling by Judges Clive Lewis and Jonathan Swift, the groups and asylum seekers will be able to take their cases to the Court of Appeal.
2:16
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.551.0_en.html#goog_2054728585Play Video – Braverman defends Rwanda policySuella Braverman has stood by the Rwanda policy, brought in by her predecessor Priti Patel and then PM Boris Johnson.
The Rwanda scheme was announced by Mr Johnson last April, with the first flight set to take off two months later.
But the deportation was blocked by a last-minute ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, which imposed an injunction preventing any further flights until the conclusion of legal action.
Ms Braverman praised the initial ruling on the policy as lawful, saying the plan was a “humane” and “practical alternative” for those who come to the UK through “dangerous, illegal and unnecessary routes”.
But opposition parties deemed it “unworkable”, “unethical”, and “extremely expensive”.
Asked if the appeal was a setback for the government’s plans, Ms Braverman told reporters: “The government is clear that we support and are proud of theground-breaking agreement and partnership that we have struck with Rwanda so that we can deliver our plans to swiftly detain and remove those people who come here illegally to our country.”
The controversial UK government plan to send asylum seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is legal, according to judges.
Two High Court judges have ruled that the UK government’s plan to send asylum seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is legal, winning a victory for proponents of the divisive policy.
However, the judges also stated on Monday that the government did not take into account the unique circumstances of those it attempted to deport, indicating that additional legal disputes will arise.
The case has a court hearing scheduled for the following month, and appeals are most likely.
Several asylum seekers, aid groups and a border officials’ union filed lawsuits to stop the Conservative government from acting on a deportation agreement with Rwanda that would see refugees who arrive in the UK by boat sent to the East African country.
The asylum seekers would then have to present their asylum claims in Rwanda. Those not granted asylum in Rwanda would, under the plan, be able to apply to stay on other grounds or to try to get resettled in a third country.
“The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom,” Judge Clive Lewis said.
But he added that the government “must decide if there is anything about each person’s particular circumstances which means that his asylum claim should be determined in the United Kingdom or whether there are other reasons why he should not be relocated to Rwanda”.
“The Home Secretary has not properly considered the circumstances of the eight individual claimants whose cases we have considered,” the judge said.
‘Very disappointed’
Ever Solomon, head of the charity Refugee Council, said the group was “very disappointed” by the ruling.
“Treating people who are in search of safety like human cargo and shipping them off to another country is a cruel policy that will cause great human suffering,” he said.
Al Jazeera’s Harry Fawcett, reporting from the Royal Courts of Justice in London, said the verdict, “a major decision made by the court in favour of the government”, could be appealed.
“If the road runs out in the UK, there is also the possibility that it could go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg as well,” he said.
“And that’s where this potentially becomes even more controversial as the European Court of Human Rights has the power to rule government policy unlawful.”
A protestor holds a placard while demonstrating outside the High Court in London [Peter Nicholls/Reuters]
More than 44,000 people who crossed the Channel in small boats have arrived in Britain this year, and several have died in the attempt, including four last week when a boat capsized in freezing weather.
Human rights groups say the government’s deal with Rwanda is illegal and unworkable, and that it is inhumane to send people thousands of miles to a country they don’t want to live in.
They also cite Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including allegations of torture and killings of government opponents.
Britain has paid Rwanda 120 million pounds ($146m) under the deal struck in April, but no one has yet been sent to the country.
The UK was forced to cancel the first deportation flight at the last minute in June after the European Court of Human Rights ruled the plan carried “a real risk of irreversible harm”.
The British government is determined to press on with the policy, arguing that it will deter people-trafficking gangs who ferry migrants on hazardous journeys across the Channel’s busy shipping lanes.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who has called the Channel crossings an “invasion of our southern coast”, told the Times of London it would be “unforgivable” if the government did not stop the journeys.
Rwanda’s reaction
Rwandan government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo welcomed the British court’s decision.
“This is a positive step in our quest to contribute innovative, long-term solutions to the global migration crisis,” she said.
The UK government has argued that while Rwanda was the site of a genocide that killed more than 800,000 people in 1994, the country has since built a reputation for stability and economic progress. Critics say that stability comes at the cost of political repression.
The UK receives fewer asylum seekers than many European nations, including France, Germany and Italy, but thousands of refugees from around the world travel to northern France each year in hopes of crossing the Channel.
Some want to reach the UK because they have friends or family there, others because they speak English or because it’s perceived to be easy to find work.
The government wants to deport all people who arrive by irregular routes and aims to strike Rwanda-style deals with other countries.
Critics point out there are few authorised routes for seeking asylum in the UK, other than those set up for people from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong.
2:16