On the first day of a High Court challenge to the deal, which would see the UK forcibly send asylum seekers to Kigali, new evidence emerged of repeated internal warnings against the plans. Documents filed by lawyers representing several people targeted for removal, along with the PCS union, Detention Action and Care4Calais, showed Rwanda’s consideration of a “migration conspiracy” had been under way since September 2020. Dominic Raab, then foreign secretary, approved criteria under which countries would be excluded if “individuals faced a real risk of violations of international human rights law”. Rwanda drew up a long list of 47 countries, but after further research by civil servants, it did not draw up a list of seven nations proposed as potential partners in February 2021. Documents released to the plaintiffs by the government show that it appeared instead on a list of “14 countries presenting significant issues with respect to asylum systems and human rights and/or political negotiation.” An official statement to Mr Raab said: “We have looked very carefully at Rwanda, which has previously agreed cooperation on migration … but has significant human rights concerns.” It said Rwanda was “accused of recruiting refugees to carry out operations in neighboring countries”, had a “burdensome security system” and that a previous agreement with Israel had been suspended. In March 2021, Downing Street’s policy unit told the Foreign Office it wanted information on countries outside the seven proposed countries, but Rwanda was still not on the list. A statement to the former foreign secretary said: “The 10 have asked us to reconsider the viability of [redacted] Rwanda [redacted]. We had previously excluded all of these countries for political and/or legal reasons. We see little reason to change that.” A Foreign Office document from May 2021 said Downing Street “continued to show interest” in Rwanda, but officials “continued to advise No 10 against involvement”. An internal assessment the following month said that “politically directed human rights abuses (torture, murder, kidnapping) are common” and that there were “concerns about human rights abuses of the political opposition”. But last June the Foreign Office was told the prime minister was “disappointed at the rate of progress” on an asylum processing deal with a foreign country and shared a “particular interest in Rwanda” with Ms Patel and the immigration minister. Mr Raab then authorized diplomatic staff in Rwanda to contact the country’s government over a possible deal, which was signed in April despite further internal government warnings about the treatment of refugees. Priti Patel praises Rwanda as High Court appeal begins As the High Court case began on Monday, Ms Patel tweeted a Home Office video showing her praising Rwanda as “an incredible country that has a very, very progressive and developed approach in terms of not just how with which they treat people but also their way of governing. “. Appearing on the footage, the outgoing home secretary said the Rwanda deal was “essential” and would “set new international standards”. The plaintiff’s legal submissions said the Home Secretary, and the UK government more generally, “were aware of and appeared to have serious concerns about the current and historical human rights record in Rwanda” and that “concerns were repeatedly raised by public officials”. Addressing the High Court on Monday, Raza Husain QC said Rwanda is a “one-party authoritarian state with extreme levels of surveillance that does not tolerate political opposition”. “She imprisons, tortures and murders those she considers her opponents,” the lawyer added. “Those who protest or disagree with government directives, including refugees, face police violence and repression.” The reported incidents include a 2018 demonstration where several refugees were shot dead by Rwandan police, while other protesters were charged with crimes such as “spreading false information with the aim of creating hostile international opinion against the state of Rwanda”. Rwanda is also accused of violating the Refugee Convention by forcibly returning asylum seekers to countries where they face persecution, and of allowing the “disappearances” of migrants transported by Israel. Priti Patel and Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Vincent Biruta signed a partnership on migration and economic development in Kigali in April (Flora Thompson/PA) (PA Wire) “None of this is the will of parliament,” Mr Husain told the Supreme Court. “It is a matter of executive policy alone and must be strictly considered on that basis.” In an official assessment published in May, the British government declared Rwanda a “safe third country” for the purposes of asylum processing, but claimants dispute the document’s accuracy. The High Court heard that a draft version was shared with Rwandan officials before publication and that recommendations and amendments by internal government reviewers were ignored. An official from the Home Office’s country policy intelligence team wrote that he had “tried to improve the tone without resorting to fiction” and wanted to restructure the document to “make it sound more positive”. But a Foreign Office judge recommended several changes, saying the assessment should not be “white-washed” and should not attribute “very clear facts” about Rwanda’s human rights to “certain NGOs”. Written arguments on behalf of the home secretary said that asylum claims were considered on a case-by-case basis and that “there was no risk of harm to any of the individual applicants in Rwanda”. Lawyers acting for the Home Office told the High Court that following a “dramatic increase” in small boat crossings across the Channel, Ms Patel “considers there is a strong public interest in preventing such illegal, dangerous and unnecessary journeys from safe third countries to the UK by asylum seekers’. They added: “To achieve this, the UK has sought to establish a partnership with another third country to which asylum seekers who have made such journeys to the UK could be safely relocated. “This third country was supposed to be safe, but without the same attraction for migrants that the UK seems to be presenting. Many countries were considered, but Rwanda was the first to be chosen.” The hearing, which will last five days, continues.
