Rwanda bill axes vital human rights obligations, report warns

An incriminating new report highlights that the policy not only leaves refugees without a safe place to live but warns it could ruin the UK’s reputation.

This morning, a new report from MPs was published which details the detrimental effects the Rwanda bill could have should it be passed. The aim of the bill, which is progressing quickly through the houses of parliament, is to counter the judgement of the Supreme Court which found that Rwanda is not a safe place for UK asylum seekers to be removed to last November.

The bill, which was introduced as part of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s plans to ‘stop the boats’, claims that Rwanda is a safe country and that anyone who is sent there by the government will not be forcibly removed to an unsafe country.

Against this backdrop, the report finds it is unclear whether this can be guaranteed in practice.

In November 2023 two out of three judges from the Supreme Court cited five reasons as to why the bill is unlawful. These include:

• Asylum interviews are conducted in a brief and perfunctory manner, which could prevent a person from being able to fully explain their circumstance
• Rwanda’s committee to determine refugee status does not allow lawyers to make arguments on behalf of a person, to help explain why they should be granted asylum
• Local non-governmental organisations do not have the capacity to provide asylum seekers with legal assistance throughout the process
• Rwandan officials deciding applications do not have sufficient skills and experiences to make reliable decisions, partly due to a lack of training
• Judges in Rwanda may be susceptible to political influence and reluctant to overturn decisions not to grant asylum

To conduct the report, a committee of MPs gathered evidence from legal experts, academics, and non-governmental organisations (NGO). They discovered that the bill is incompatible with the UK’s human rights obligations, erodes the protections laid out in the Human Rights Act, contravenes part of the European convention on human rights and falls short of the UK’s commitment to comply with international treaties.

The report said: ‘The bill’s near total exclusion of judicial scrutiny seeks to undermine the constitutional role of the domestic courts in holding the executive to account.’

In addition, the committee’s chair, Joanna Cherry MP, has stated that the bill creates ‘hostility’ to human rights and that no number of improvements would be able to save it.

‘This bill is designed to remove vital safeguards against persecution and human rights abuses, including the fundamental right to access a court. Hostility to human rights is at its heart and no amendments can salvage it,’ Joanna said. ‘This isn’t just about the rights and wrongs of the Rwanda policy itself. By taking this approach, the bill risks untold damage to the UK’s reputation as a proponent of human rights internationally.’

In response to the report, a home office spokesperson said: ‘We are committed to tackling this major global challenge with bold and innovative solutions, and the Rwanda scheme is doing just that. The bill we have introduced, and the treaty alongside it, are the best way of getting flights off to Rwanda as soon as possible.

‘Rwanda is clearly a safe country that cares deeply about supporting refugees. It hosts more than 135,000 asylum seekers and stands ready to relocate people and help them rebuild their lives.’

The Rwanda bill is set to reach its committee stage in the House of Lords this afternoon where it is thought it will be heavily scrutinised. 

Images: Matteo Paganelli and RDNE

More on this topic:

Government received criticism after deciding to help fund refugee homes in Norfolk

Mayor of London: Government refugee policies ‘inhumane’, ministers must do more to help