What to Know About the UK Policy that Plans to Send Asylum Seekers to Rwanda

Hours after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak promised to ensure flights carrying asylum seekers to Rwanda would start between late June and early July, British Parliament passed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act.

The bill, which was introduced to the House of Commons by Home Secretary James Cleverly last December, went through three rounds of reading, and was introduced to the House of Lords where several amendments were proposed. The British government refused to accede to the proposals, as the bill went back and forth between both houses -- until a standstill last night resulted in the Lords backing down.

Set to become law following royal approval in the coming days, this is the strongest iteration of several bills aimed at legalizing the British government’s long-running plans to deport asylum seekers, who enter the country through illegal channels, to Rwanda. It’s been a high priority for Sunak and the Conservative Party, especially as its ratings flounder in the lead up to the upcoming general elections.

Introduced by former prime minister Boris Johnson, under the UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, the Rwanda asylum plan will send those deemed “illegal migrants” to the East African country, where their asylum cases will be heard. If asylum is granted, permanent resident permits and accommodation will be granted.

What is the cost of this policy?

The UK will also send hundreds of millions of pounds in “economic aid” to Rwanda for taking in the refugees. The Home Office will pay the government of Rwanda £370 million (about $460 million) under the Economic Transformation and Integration Fund and a further £20,000 (almost $25,000) for every person who is relocated. Up to £150,874 (about $188,000) per person will also be paid for processing and operational costs over five years. If the person decides to leave Rwanda, that payment will stop and the UK will further pay £10,000 ($12,500) per person to facilitate their departure.

According to reports, Rwanda has housing readily available to take on 500 refugees. In one of the two sites, Hope Hostel in northern Kigali, managing director Ismael Bakinatold the BBC that the hostel has been ready to take in its first migrants for almost two years now.

Prior to this asylum arrangement, Hope Hostel housed survivors of the 1994 genocide, but they were evacuated without alternative accommodation, days before former Home Secretary Priti Patel signed an agreement with the Rwandan government in 2022. Also, Rwanda is facing its own housing issues, with predictions that affordable housing shortages will double by 2050, which makes the asylum plan a concern for locals.

What are the reactions to this policy?

There haven’t been vocal, widespread complaints in Rwanda about the intake of refugees, but few people who have spoken to the press under anonymity worry that the influx of migrants might affect the current employment situation. Currently, 15 percent of Rwanda’s workforce is unemployed. Vocal opposition figures Victoire Ingabire and Frank Habinezahave also stated their disapproval, deeming it a financial move for the government that isn’t taking into account the dignity of those being flown into the country.

Prior to this “partnership” with the UK, the Rwandan government struck a similar deal with Israel between 2014 and 2017, but it was canceled after the 4,000 refugees left. In 2022, it reached an agreement with the government of Denmark to take on illegal migrants. However, the UK’s plan seems like it will be the first to truly stick, as the British government seems prepared to go to whatever lengths.

After a last minute ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) grounded the first flight meant to carry refugees to Rwanda in June 2022, the UK’s Supreme Court deemed the Rwanda asylum plan to be unlawful, citing safety reasons in Rwanda. According to Human Rights Watch, the Rwandan government led by Paul Kagame is stern on dissent, cracking down on individuals who criticize public policies.

Human rights issues

The introduction of the recently passed act aims to sidestep the Supreme Court’s ruling, which struck down the previous iteration of the bill, known as the Illegal Migration Bill. In addition to a recently signed treaty with the East African country, the Safety of Rwanda Act advises judges to overlook the Supreme Court’s rulings when related cases are brought before them, and ministers can ensure planes carrying refugees can depart for Rwanda in spite of “interim measures” by the ECHR.

The new act now nullifies some provisions in Britain’s Human Rights’ Act of 1998, and Sunak has said he’s prepared for the UK to exit the European Convention on Human Rights, in order to underline the sovereignty of the British government.

Human rights organizations have roundly condemned the passing of the asylum bill and it is expected that legal steps will be taken to challenge it. The United Nations’ refugee agency has also criticized the bill’s passage, noting that it contravenes the 1951 Refugee Convention.

“The new legislation marks a further step away from the U.K.’s long tradition of providing refuge to those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention,” U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandisaid in a statement. “Protecting refugees requires all countries – not just those neighboring crisis zones – to uphold their obligations.”