Crash and Burn

This is both optimistic and troubling. Fairfax media reports that "China has put…

The Admirable Demonstration of Dan Tehan And Other…

Apparently, Dan Tehan was on QandA last night. I only know this…

Condensed Fun Facts, Dates, Myths/Misconceptions

By Richard Whitington Fun Referendum Facts Fun Referendum Facts #1: The ballot paper for…

Cannabis: We can shut up, toe the line,…

When President Obama commented that he thought cannabis was likely less dangerous…

Corruption suspicions hang over secret PNG refugee contracts

Refugee Action Coalition Media Release AUSTALIA’S SECRET PNG DEAL MUST BE INVESTIGATED Refugee advocates…

Dianne Feinstein: National Security State Diva

The tributes for the late Democratic Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, heaped…

Media Alert - Refugees Say "Fair Go, Albo"

A protest vigil will be held for 4 days at the electoral…

The Voice reveals the urgent need for truth…

The fact that Elon Musk has just halved his election integrity team…


Cruel Arrangements: The UK-Rwanda Refugee Deal Falters

Since 2022, Rwanda has been very much on the mind of British policy makers, a dark option of retreat from the irritating intrusions of international refugee law. The English Channel has become something of a polemical resource, with those seeking to cross it demonised as undermining Britannia’s sacred sovereignty.

Giddy with the dusty advice of Australian advisors – the crude offerings of wisdom from former foreign minister Alexander Downer, and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott stand out – respective Tory governments have been pondering how to stem the arrival of irregular migrants and asylum seekers.

The use of third states as a means of deferring obligations of protection towards refugees has become an attractive, brutal way of snuffing out the right to asylum. The UN Refugee Convention of 1951 is treated as a dead letter, and options such as the “Australian model” in repelling unwanted arrivals thrill populist politicians.

The common choice of destination in all these agreements is Africa, with Rwanda proving most attractive. In equal measures the choice of such a country is both daft and cruel. But this has not stopped Denmark and the United Kingdom from signing memoranda of understanding and agreements making Kigali the favoured destination of unwanted asylum seekers.

On April 14, 2022 the Johnson government announced that it had reached an Asylum Partnership Arrangement with Rwanda “to contribute to the prevention and combating of illegally facilitated and unlawful cross border migration by establishing a bilateral asylum partnership.” According to the agreement, Rwanda would receive asylum seekers whose claims would be otherwise processed in the UK and consider applications through its own domestic asylum system. They would also assume settling and protective responsibilities. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, crowed that the arrangements were “uncapped”, with Rwanda having “the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead.”

That Rwanda should even feature at all was baffling for human rights advocates. Home Secretary Suella Braverman is barely believable in her claim that “Rwanda has a track record of successfully resettling and integrating people who are refugees or asylum seekers”.

While the UK government continues to praise the country as a model of development and guardian of human rights, Kigali’s record is abysmal. Organisations such as Human Rights Watch have noted the country’s appetite for prosecuting dissidents, using torture, arbitrary detention, and resorting to more than the occasional extrajudicial assassination.

Rwandan police have not been shy in using live ammunition on protesters, especially when they have been refugees. In February 2018, twelve refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo were gunned down in a protest over diminished food rations at the Kiziba camp. A rash of arrests were hurriedly made, with charges ranging from the implausible accusation of rebellion to the “spreading of false information with intent to create a hostile international opinion against the Rwandan state.”

As to how well the Rwandan state processes claims for asylum, the record is hardly glorious there, either. Instances of “airport refoulement” – where individuals arriving in the country claiming asylum are denied entry and promptly returned back to countries they have flown from, abound. (The testy response from Rwanda border authorities suggested that these were not cases of refoulement given that these arrivals tended to use forged documents, thereby failing to meet immigration entry requirements.)

Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, a political figure Rwanda’s authorities have often found threatening, offers another, oft neglected angle on her country’s policies. The Rwandan government, she challenges, “creates thousands of refugees every year and its government is yet to guarantee a safe environment for Rwandan refugees settled across the world to return home.” The very fact that 12,838 Rwandans fled their own country to seek asylum should scuttle any claims about refugee safety. The joke is on any power willing to send the vulnerable to the country.

Despite such facts respective UK Home Secretaries have been pushing the plan as viable and, most astonishingly of all, legal. Potential victims of the policy have begged to differ. Last year, a legal appeal by ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania, along with the charity Asylum Aid, was launched. The central claims by the parties were that there were real risks that their claims to asylum would not be properly and fairly determined by the authorities in Kigali, and that there was a serious risk that they would either be sent back to their own country (refoulement) or be “subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The UK government, at least initially, had reason to be cocky. It scored a legal victory in the High Court in December 2022, which had taken the undertakings made by Kigali in the Memorandum of Understanding and Notes Verbales (NV) at face value. The Home Secretary had also conducted, it was astonishingly found, a “thorough examination” of “all relevant generally available information” relevant to human rights.

On June 29, a majority of the Court of Appeal reversed the decision. As Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls opined, “there were substantial grounds for thinking that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda under the MEDP [Migration and Economic Development Partnership]” at the date the decisions were made by the secretary in July 2022 “faced real risks of article 3 mistreatment.” Such a conclusion was inevitable after consulting “the historical record described by the UNHCR, the significant concerns of the UNHCR itself, and the factual realities of the current asylum process itself.”

The Rwandan human rights record, which was danced around in the lower court, comes in for some severe pasting. Lord Justice Underhill noted the lower court’s own acknowledgment that the Rwandan government was “intolerant of dissent; that there are restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly, freedom of the press and freedom of speech; and that political opponents have been detained in unofficial detention centres and have been subjected to torture and Article 3 ill-treatment short of torture.”

As has been starkly demonstrated by Australia’s own offshoring record, outsourcing a state’s obligations to process asylum claims is both costly to the taxpayer and bound to put asylum seekers and refugees in harm’s way. Doing so contravenes the spirit, and the letter, of international refugee law, whatever specious claims are advanced to the contrary. It is a source of some comfort that certain judicial officers in the UK have come to that same conclusion. An appeal to the Supreme Court, however, will test this further.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button



Login here Register here
  1. JulianP

    Ahhhh. Mr. Abbott and Mr. Downer !
    I remember reading something about them – somewhere – a long time ago.
    That anyone would take notice of either remains an enduring mystery.

  2. New England Cocky

    Reminds me of the demonisation of Jewish people that led to exploring the possibility of a Jewish state outside of Palestine, including west coast Tasmania. Anti-Semitic politics and popular opinion against the Jewish people encouraged the German Holocaust. See movie, ”Schindler’s List” based on Tom Kenneally’s book ”Schindler’s Arc” for a glimpse of the horror of state sponsored genocide policies.
    Having striped African nations bare of most of their natural resources now the self-important colonial minded English & their lackeys want to keep the colonial gains and exclude the historically exploited persons.

  3. Douglas Pritchard

    Look back in history and you would find the poms shipping their misfits to Orstraylia.
    And they were being imported here at 10 pound per head.
    Thank goodness we put a stop to that.

  4. Canguro

    Nothing surprises me about England these days. Thirteen years of Conservative Party government along with prior iterations – the dominatrix Thatcher with her massive contempt for British people for example – and what has the country got to show for it? Privatisation? That’s worked well, hasn’t it? Thames Water for example…effluent discharge into rivers & oceans, failing infrastructure, overcharging of customers. Health care? The NHS in free-fall, mass resignations, inefficiencies, bureaucratic overload, wait-list blowouts. Brexit? Cost of living crises? Say no more.

    Political self-serving, inadequacy, insularity, incompetence… where does the list of just how much damage these charlatans have done and continue to do to the country end?

    A small island with a large population needs careful & mindful management. Difficult to see if there’s anyway out of the mess that it’s got itself into. The fantasy that is the royal family sorely needs puncturing…. disillusionment being preferable to illusion, as truth trumps falsehood… the king, long held to be a champion of the environment turns out to be, instead, the overlord of estates where destruction of protected wildlife is carried out under his watch… extraordinary abuse of privilege. And not only Chuckles the deceiver, the whole inbred family of gits need to be turfed and forced to join the real world.

    86% of British rivers & streams & lakes considered to be highly polluted. Farmers a protected species. More than 50% of the country owned by less than 1% of the people. Feudal mentality still flickering.

    How the worm turns! Colonialism might have been all the rage when it was, well, all the rage, but its UBD has well & truly come and gone and now this post-colonial thicket of churning dissatisfactions is sinking in the mud of its own making. The sneering disgrace known as Suella Braverman, daughter of Indian immigrants and no doubt in her private moments a self-detesting neurotic wants to exorcise her demons by inflicting maximum cruelties on people seeking access via refugee status from intolerable circumstances by sending them to the dark heart of Africa. A folly now rightly struck down by a High Court decision. Perhaps Rwanda should send its malcontents to Britain instead, just to twist the knife a little.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: