After a year and a half, Boris Johnson’s announced plan to tackle illegal immigration fell apart with a bang, following a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court to reject sending migrants to Rwanda. The current Prime Minister seemed disappointed, but stated that he will literally reverse the text and convert the agreement with Rwanda into a treaty.
The judges of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the Ministry of the Interior and confirmed the conclusion of the court of second instance that the measure was unlawful because Rwanda cannot be considered a safe third country, that is to say that the people sent risk of abuse” because they are sent back to the countries from which they fled, some of which are affected by conflict. The presiding judge, Robert Reed, emphasized that the decision was made on “legal and not political grounds.”
Yolande Makolo, spokeswoman for the Rwandan government, disputed the decision. “Rwanda is committed to meeting its international obligations,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “We have been recognized by UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees.”
The reality is a little more complex. The aforementioned United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said the African country does not have an “accessible, reliable, fair and effective asylum system,” recalling that it “has always raised serious concerns” about this solution. Demonstrating that UNHCR’s concerns are not just a state of mind, the Geneva-based United Nations body reported that Rwanda has rejected “100% of asylum applications” from countries in conflict zones such as Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, “although the British authorities often conclude that these requests are justified”.
The Rwandan plan cost London 140 million pounds (160 million euros), but the only plane that was supposed to travel with seven asylum seekers – the only ones who did not appeal to justice – ultimately did not take off, after a ruling by the European Court of Justice. Justice, human rights.
The day before, Sunak was treated to invective of “weak, insecure and lacking leadership skills” by sacked Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who accused him of having “no credible plan B”. The criticism was made in a letter in which she explained that she had agreed to continue in the position to which she had been invited by Liz Truss because the Prime Minister had committed to reducing immigration levels and legislating to implement the Rwandan deportation to lay. plan. Braverman’s letter was read by analysts as not only taking a stance on the situation, but also as an alternative to the Tories’ leadership.
In the House of Commons, Rishi Sunak told MPs that the government is working on a ‘new treaty’ with Rwanda and has ultimately responded positively to the party’s hard wing calling for the country to withdraw from the European Convention on the Rights of Persons Human. . “If it becomes clear that our national legal frameworks or international treaties continue to pose an obstacle, I am ready to change our laws and reexamine these international relations,” he said.
Source: DN
