Cost of UK-Rwanda ‘cash for people’ deal

OVER the past years, the UK government has been exploring ways to deport asylum seekers to other countries, particularly African countries, as part of its efforts to deter illegal migration.

In its latest move, the government passed the Rwanda Bill and successfully negotiated a deal with Rwanda to facilitate the deportation of asylum seekers.

The measure received support in the British Parliament, aligning with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s agenda of “stopping the boats”. The scale of the plan is significant, with about 2 000 of 52000 individuals slated for deportation within the next 10 to 12 weeks.

Under the terms of the agreement, asylum seekers who arrived in the UK through unauthorised routes may find themselves whisked 6 400km away to Rwanda.

While some view this as consistent with Rwanda’s tradition of hospitality, the agreement has sparked criticism from human rights activists, politicians and even the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Concerns revolve around human rights violations and the lack of adequate safeguards and standards in the arrangement. Civil society groups and opposition political parties in Rwanda also spoke out against the deal.

Rwanda has its refugees in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, and the country has a history of conflict and human rights abuses. The questions linger about its capacity to absorb an influx of vulnerable migrants, given its strained resources and political tension.

There are more concerns regarding the lack of transparency surrounding the deal. Neither government has provided details on how the partnership would work.

Despite all the concerns and criticisms, the Rwandan government has pledged to accept the migrants in exchange for £120 million (R2.7 billion in the so-called “development deal”.

Both governments agree that the plan offers a fresh start for migrants, with promises of support including training, accommodation and health care for up to five years.

This is not the first time such a migration agreement is being proposed in Africa. Israel introduced a similarly contentious deportation plan to Rwanda and Uganda from 2014 to 2017. In January, reports suggested that Israel had been in discussions with Congo about potential “voluntary migration plans” for Palestinians from Gaza.

Botswana recently became the latest country to receive and reject a proposal to accept asylum seekers from the UK. The instances highlight a growing trend of countries exploring migration agreements.

For Africa, there are significant consequences to bear. The deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda sets a concerning precedent that can exacerbate migration challenges and socio-economic disparities across the continent. Moreover, the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda may create a domino effect, leading to secondary migration flows to neighbouring African countries.

This could result in increased irregular migration, heightened competition for resources and potential social tension in neighbouring countries.

The Rwanda Bill sets a concerning example for future migration agreements. It shows how richer countries can evade their international responsibilities to host refugees by transferring them to other countries in exchange for development deals or financial support.

Equally significant is the agency of African countries to refuse such deals, as demonstrated by Botswana’s recent decision. African nations have every right to assert their sovereignty and determine their own migration policies in alignment with their national interests and capacities.

As the deportation process unfolds, a pervasive sense of uncertainty hangs over those directly impacted by the imminent transfers. Recent events have served only to exacerbate tension, as videos and reports surface of asylum seekers being apprehended and detained in preparation for their relocation to Rwanda.

The arrests highlight the troubling reality of abuse and disregard for the rights and well-being of migrants within the immigration system.

In light of the developments, we must confront and challenge the systemic injustices inherent in immigration enforcement. We must demand accountability for those responsible for the mistreatment of asylum seekers and advocate for policies that uphold the rights and dignity of all migrants, regardless of their status.

Only through collective action and solidarity can we hope to create a more just and humane migration system that respects the inherent worth and dignity of every individual because, at the end of the day, the true cost of this deal is not measured in financial gain but in human suffering.

As the international community continues to watch, the plight of the UK asylum seekers hangs in the balance, caught between the politics of migration and the pursuit of a better life.