The Scottish Refugee Council has expressed solidarity with individuals affected by the 'Safety of Rwanda' Act and the Illegal Migration Act. The council is deeply concerned about the Home Office's plans to detain people seeking asylum before removals to Rwanda. They believe that the Rwanda scheme and similar policies are not effective for people seeking protection or local communities. Instead, they advocate for a fair and inclusive plan for refugees. The council has provided advice and information for those who may be affected by the news of Rwanda raids.
The UK's Safety of Rwanda Act, which enables the deportation of migrants to Rwanda, is seen as a violation of international law. The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits countries from removing people from their jurisdiction if they are at risk of harm, is being violated. The act has been condemned by scholars of international law, who argue that it flouts the fundamental principles of international law. The principle of non-refoulement is a customary international norm that all countries must respect. Violating this principle can lead to court orders and injunctions, compensation and redress, reputational damage, changes to law and policy, and increased scrutiny. The UK government has ignored the UK Supreme Court's ruling that sending people to Rwanda risks violating international treaties. There are concerns about Rwanda's ability to fulfill its promises and its human rights record. Asylum seekers may lodge cases against the UK government to delay their deportation and prove the risk of refoulement [c3cff71c].
The Scottish Refugee Council has a history of opposing state violence policies such as dawn raids and lock change evictions. They stand in solidarity with anyone affected by these developments and are committed to supporting individuals impacted by the Rwanda Act. The council believes that the act and similar policies do not provide an effective solution for individuals seeking protection and the local communities. They emphasize the importance of implementing a fair and inclusive plan for refugees, ensuring their rights and well-being are prioritized [e20112d5].
The union for senior civil servants, FDA, has launched an unprecedented challenge in the High Court against the UK government's plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda. The FDA argues that its members could be made to break the law under the government's plan. They have urged the court to clarify whether ministers could tell staff to ignore a European Court of Human Rights order to stop a flight. The outcome of the case could have significant constitutional implications. The government confirmed that there would be no Rwanda flight before 24 July and the case must be settled before then [6f918541].
Rwanda's government has acknowledged the UK's intention to terminate the contentious deportation scheme. This is the first official comment from Rwandan authorities on the cancellation of the scheme. It is unclear if they were reacting to press reports or received official notification. The deal, initiated by the UK to address irregular migration affecting the UK, aimed to deter migrants from risking their lives on a journey that could end with deportation to Rwanda. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the deportation plan a 'gimmick' and stated that it was 'dead and buried before it started.' The Rwandan government claims to have fully upheld its side of the agreement, including finances. The scheme has cost the UK government hundreds of millions of dollars without any deportations taking place [65d6b11f].
Rwanda's government has acknowledged the UK's decision to potentially terminate its plan to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda. The agreement, criticized by human rights groups, was initiated by the UK to curb irregular migration. British PM Keir Starmer recently labeled the plan as defunct and criticized it for being ineffective and costly. This marks the first official comment from Rwandan authorities on the UK's new Labour Party government's plan to cancel the scheme, which has faced criticism from human rights watchdogs and others who deemed it cruel and inhumane. Initially promoted as a deterrent to prevent migrants from risking dangerous journeys, the Rwanda deportation plan has cost the UK government hundreds of millions of dollars without being implemented. The Rwandan statement noted that the government has fully upheld its end of the agreement, financially and otherwise [dad1b13a].
Independent human rights experts welcome the decision by the newly elected UK Government to end the policy of transferring asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing. The UK Government had announced the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership in 2022, but in November 2023, the UK Supreme Court ruled it unlawful. In response, the two governments signed the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Treaty in December 2023, which was later ratified by the UK Parliament in April 2024. Since the policy was announced, UNHCR, OHCHR, and several UN human rights mechanisms have raised concerns about its compliance with international human rights and refugee law. The experts are relieved that the UK Government has decided to abandon the plan, as it would have externalized the UK's asylum obligations and posed human rights risks for migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees [438d7f3e].