The British Parliament has finally given the green light for the controversial law which allows the government to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda, a step that has sparked intense controversy and criticism from various international actors.
After months of heated debates and a long rebound between the rooms of the Lords and Commons, the law was passed late at night. The unelected members of the Upper House, in fact, repeatedly sent the amended plan back to the Lower House, but ultimately agreed not to make any further changes, thus allowing the bill to become law. The law should receive “theroyal assent” of King Charles III today or tomorrow, necessary for its entry into force. THE first direct flights should be leaving for Rwanda already since July.
Migrants, what is the Rwanda plan
The new law, called “Safety of Rwanda bill“, was proposed by the British government as a solution to address the problem of irregular immigration across the English Channel. However, its content has sparked numerous controversies, especially regarding human rights guarantees and real security offered by Rwanda as a host country.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was satisfied and had pledged to "stop the migrant boats" landing on the English coast at any cost.
Migrants, the first flights to Rwanda will depart from July
I first flights to Rwanda are scheduled for July, although it is not clear which airlines will accept the task, given that even RwandAir had refused fearing damage to its reputation.
The plan to deport migrants to Africa, originally proposed in April 2022 under Boris Johnson's government, has been subject of various legal disputes. The Supreme Court last year rejected the plan, ruling that Rwanda cannot be considered "a safe asylum".
The treaty between the UK and Rwanda provides for the creation of a new appellate court under Rwandan law, overseen by two co-chairs, one Rwandan and the other from another Commonwealth country, as well as the establishment of a panel of judges of different nationalities to hear appeals if the asylum application is rejected. The Rwandan government stressed that this partnership reflects its commitment to protecting vulnerable people and guaranteed that anyone arriving in Rwanda under the new treaty will be welcomed and given the support they need to build a new life in the country. The English government, however facilitate the implementation of this new agreement five-year plan, has invested £290 million to boost the country's economic growth, with a particular focus on education, agriculture and healthcare, with a further £50 million being sent to Kigali now that the law has been passed, bringing the total investment a 340 million pounds.
Migrants, here are the criticisms of the Rwanda plan
There are many criticisms of the project. A central point of criticism concerns theabsence of an independent mechanism to assess whether Rwanda is actually a “Safe country“, as supported by law. Furthermore, the law has been the subject of heated debate because of its high costs and doubts raised about its effectiveness in deterring migrants from seeking refuge in the UK. King Charles himself, who will now have to reluctantly sign the law, had previously defined it as "frightening"
The Government's plan was rated as very expensive by National Audit Office, which estimates a cost of £1,8 million for each of the first 300 migrants transferred to Rwanda, although this represents only a fraction of the 29.437 migrants who landed last year. Despite this, the prime minister Rishi sunak claims that the law will serve as a deterrent, discouraging migrants from making the dangerous Channel crossing and thus damaging human trafficking organisations.
The British Foreign Office itself published a report that appears to counter the premise of the law. According to the report, the Rwanda is a problematic country, with over 56,5% of the population living on less than $1,90 a day, a government that has made no significant progress in reducing poverty over the past decade, endemic malnutrition and aid to the population that is far below the necessary. The British government, however, has a different opinion paints a very different picture, calling Rwanda a safe and suitable country to welcome those who have no right to remain in the UK.
Many humanitarian organizations, against the government's plan, plan to challenge the law in court, stressing that the prospect of being transferred to Rwanda will not be a sufficient deterrent for the thousands of desperate people risking their lives crossing the English Channel.
UN: “The Rwanda plan is a dangerous precedent”
Opposition to the British plan has also been highlighted internationally, with the United Nations and the Council of Europe expressing concern about negative impact on the protection of human rights and the rule of law.
The United Nations has called on the UK to review plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, as it believes this measure, approved by the British Parliament, undermines the rule of law and sets a "dangerous global precedent". The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, and his counterpart responsible for refugees, Filippo Grandi, called on Sunak's government "to take practical measures instead to combat irregular flows of refugees and migrants, on the basis of international cooperation and respect for international human rights law".
Doubts also came from the Council of Europe which urged the UK to abandon the controversial plan: “The UK Government should refrain from removing people under the Rwanda plan and reverse the effective breach of judicial independence by the bill,” said the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O'Flaherty.
The Rwandan government, however, is satisfied: "We are pleased that the bill has been approved by the British Parliament", declared Yolande Makolo in a statement, adding that the Kigali government looks forward to “welcoming those who have been transferred to Rwanda”.
