Mixed reactions trail UK- Rwanda asylum scheme
THE UK and Rwanda, recently, reached an agreement styled the ‘ UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership’, where illegal migrants and asylum seekers in the UK will be relocated and resettled in Rwanda.
The UK government is of the opinion that the resettlement scheme will help curb illegal migration into the UK and tackle human trafficking.
Britain, however, has vowed to pursue its controversial policy to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda after the first flight was cancelled following a legal ruling.
The number of immigrants on the Tuesday flight had dwindled from an original 130 to seven, and finally, none, after a last minute order by the European Court of Human Rights ( ECHR).
The illegal immigrants to be resettled are from Afghanistan, Syria, Nigeria and others.
British Home Secretary, Priti Patel, said she was disappointed that ‘ legal challenge and last minute claims’ meant the plane did not take off, but insisted the heavily criticised programme would go ahead.
“We will not be deterred. Our legal team is reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now,” she said in a statement.
The grounding followed an ECHR ruling that, at least, one of the asylum seekers should stay in Britain, as there were no guarantees for his legal future in Rwanda, an East African country thousands of miles ( kilometres) away.
Patel called the ECHR intervention ‘ very surprising’ and said, “Many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next.”
Rwanda also said it remained committed to taking in the asylum seekers under the April deal, which has come under fire from the UN, rights groups and church leaders.
“We are not deterred by these developments. Rwanda stands ready to receive the migrants when they do arrive and offer them safety and opportunity in our country,” government spokeswoman, Yolande Makolo, told AFP.
Legal challenges in recent days had failed to stop the deportation policy, which the Church of England leaders described as ‘ immoral’ and ‘ shames Britain’.
“We cannot offer asylum to everyone, but we must not
outsource our et hical migration into their territoresponsibilities, or discard ries. international la w, which He explained that there are protects the right to claim many problems associated asylum,” Archbishop of with such migration control Canterbur y, Justin W elby mechanisms because it puts and Archbishop of York, many migrants at risk of Stephen Cottrell wrote in a exposure to inhuman and letter to The Times. degrading treatment and
It was reported last weekother violations of their end that Queen Elizabeth II’S human rights. heir, Prince Charles, had pri“Asylum seekers, who are vately described the governfleeing persecution from ment’s plan as ‘ appalling’. their home countries, will
But Foreign Secretar y, Liz also be prevented from havTruss, said: “The people who ing their asylum claim effiare immoral in this case are ciently evaluated,” he said. the people traffickers tradHe stressed that Rwanda, ing on human misery.” the destination choice of UK,
Truss said she could not put has a poor human rights a figure on the cost of the track record and dire ecocharter flight, which has nomic issues, which implies been estimated at upwards that asylum seekers and of £ 250,000 ($ 303,000). other migrants will be put in
But she insisted it was a very difficult position and ‘ value for money’ to reduce not be afforded access to the long- term cost of irregustandard reception, living lar migration, which the conditions and economic government says costs UK opportunities as a means to taxpayers £ 1.5 billion a year , support themselves. including £ 5 million a day “Thousands of migrants on accommodation. from many countries includ
Johnson has told his senior ing Afghanistan, Syria, and ministers the policy was the even Nigeria, will be at the right thing to do. receiving end of this deal.
A lawyer, Henry Ugwu said The UK government does not irrespective of its position, seem bothered that the exethe UK government is precution of the UK- Rwanda asysenting to the world an offlum scheme will infringe the shore migration processing human rights protections deal and the real purpose for available to asylum- seekers the deal is migration conunder the Refugee trol. Convention and numerous
“What is playing out under human rights treaties. the guise of the deal is “This deal will present pracarguably an externalisation tical challenges to access to of migration control,” he haven by asylum- seekers, it said. will also enhance pushbacks,
According to him, the UK and further jeopardise their had primarily initiated the vulnerable position,” Ugwu deal to prevent illegal said. migrants from reaching its He noted that Rwanda, border and to discourage which is not heavily critithem from contemplating cised, unlike the UK, by the migration to the UK as a media and other commentaviable option in their search tors for its role in this, would for safe ha ven or greener benefit financially from this pastures. deal.
Ugwu noted that this type “Rwanda is going to benefit of migration control has financially from the UK since existed in developed coun - it has allowed itself to be a tries like the U . S., Australia tool in the execution of this and the European Union, migration control. Like all who emplo yed similar other third world countries
strategies to discourage that have been recruited by
developed nations in similar schemes, e. g., Libya, Turkey, and Nauru, Rwanda is motivated by the assistance it stands to gain at a time when it is battling pressing economic issues.
“In all, this deal is a drawback to the creation of a system that would protect and guarantee the human rights of asylum- seekers and other migrants,” Ugwu stated.
Executive Director, Nigeria Network of NGOS ( NNNGOS), Oyebisi Oluseyi, said the plan signals a bad trend for individuals seeking asylum.
He noted, however, that while the plan has been developed to curb people smuggling, it is a shift of the international responsibility or obligation that the UK and other governments have to asylum seekers.
He said that such plans have worked for some countries, so, if it works, it could lead to a global adoption disregarding the provisions in international laws.
“We must note though that Australia and Denmark have similar plans, which has succeeded in reducing people smuggling through the sea, the UK’S plan in this regards could lead to a global adoption largely undermining the protection guaranteed by an asylum system established under international laws. Regardless of how they arrive, countries have the obligations to respect international laws on asylum.
Convener, Future Leadership Conference, Mark Idiahi, said the development is appalling and it’s wrong to transport people like commodities. Is Rwanda a dumping ground for people whose nations cannot take care of?” he asked.
Human rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana ( SAN), described the plan to deport asylum seekers as racist, unlawful and discriminatory, which is inconsistent and incompatible with the UK’S international human rights obligations.
In a letter addressed to UK’S Prime minister, Boris Johnson, he said: “I am writing to urge you to provide the leadership necessary for the UK government to immediately halt the patently unlawful and discriminatory plan to send asylum seekers and refugees who flee conflict and persecution to Rwanda, and to comply with the UK’S international legal obligations.
“I note that you announced on April, 14 2022 that under the UK and Rwanda’s new migration and economic development partnership, anyone entering the UK illegally, as well as those who have arrived illegally since January 1, may now be relocated to Rwanda.
“I also note that the UK government simultaneously published a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU), in which it concluded with the government of Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement. The MOU foresees the transfer of ‘ asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove ( as appropriate) individuals after their claim is decided,” he said.
Falana expressed concern that the Home Office is offering to fly asylum seekers and refugees back to the conflict zones they escaped from in the first instance, if they do not wish to be sent to Rwanda.
According to Falana, asylum seekers and refugees are being sent to Rwanda because of their method of reaching the UK – generally crossing the Channel to enter the UK. The largest nationality groups affected, he noted, seem to be Afghans, Iranians and Sudanese. “Sudanese refugees reportedly represent more than a third of those being sent to Rwanda.
“This patently racist, unlawful and discriminatory plan is inconsistent and incompatible with the UK’S international human rights obligations, and commitments to refugees. The UK authorities cannot and should not escape their international legal obligations to asylum seekers and refugees and push to shift such obligations to another country,” he declared.
According to him, the MOU and plan to send asylum seekers and refugees to Rwanda blatantly violate UK’S legal obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; the Convention against Torture; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
“It is patently unlawful and discriminatory for the UK government to penalise asylum seekers and refugees who belong to a group of nationalities simply because of their alleged irregular entry into the UK. The MOU and plan to send asylum seekers and refugees to Rwanda may also violate the internationally recognised right to non- refoulement, and lead to violations of other human rights.
“You will agree with me that the MOU cannot be justified under international law as both UK and Rwanda are states parties to the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.
Falana noted that sending asylum seekers and refugees to Rwanda, will amount to double jeopardy for asylum seekers and refugees, denying them their internationally recognised human rights in the UK, while also exposing them to the risks of grave human rights violations in Rwanda.
He explained that UN High Commissioner for Refugees ( UNHCR) has already raised a number of concerns about the asylum process in Rwanda, including discriminatory access to asylum, a lack of legal representation and interpreters, and difficulties in launching an appeal.
He added that UK exhibited hypocrisy by dumping their refugees in Rwanda after it has previously accused Rwandese government of violating the human rights of its own people, while also denying them access to justice and effective remedies.