Rwanda has been put back on a list of possible destinations for a “migration conspiracy” after it was previously blocked by civil servants, the court said. An additional payment of £20 million has been made to the Rwandan government on top of the previously announced £120 million in economic development funding, it has been revealed. The legal challenge came as the number of refugees arriving in small boats across the Channel rose to record levels. Liz Truss, who won the Conservative leadership contest and will become the new prime minister on Tuesday, has vowed to stick to the policy. Raza Husain QC, appearing on behalf of the asylum seekers, along with the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) and Care4Calais and Detention Action groups, said on Monday the policy was “unlawful under the Human Rights Act and the public law”. “Asylum seekers removed to Rwanda face a significant risk of a violation of their rights to be free from torture and inhuman treatment,” the court said. In written submissions, the plaintiffs said Home Secretary Priti Patel and the government “including the Foreign Office and No 10 knew and appeared to have serious concerns about Rwanda’s current and historical human rights record”. Hussein told the court: “Rwanda is a one-party authoritarian state that does not tolerate political opposition. It is a regime that repeatedly imprisons, tortures and murders whomever it deems fit [are] her political opponents. “Those who protest or disagree with government directives, including refugees, face police violence. All these comments come from our own government officials.” The Home Office is defending the allegations. A ministry spokesman argued that Rwanda is a “fundamentally safe and secure country, with a history of supporting asylum seekers”. In April, Patel signed what she described as a “world-first agreement” with Rwanda in a bid to prevent people from crossing the Channel. However, the first deportation flight, due to take off on June 14, was stalled after a series of legal challenges. Documents released to the plaintiffs by the government show that as of February 2021, Rwanda was not on a list of seven countries identified as potential partners in a migration deal. But the country was reassessed as a possible destination after the Foreign Office was told the prime minister was “disappointed with the rate of progress”, the court heard. A down payment of £20 million was made on 29 April 2022 to enable preparations for the first removal flight, which ultimately did not take off. The extra payment came despite Home Office permanent secretary Matthew Rycroft previously warning there was a high risk of fraud in the Rwanda deal. Lord Justice Lewis, sitting with Mr Justice Swift, previously said the hearing in London would start on Monday and last five days, with a second hearing on the claim brought by the Asylum Aid group to be held in October. Both decisions are expected to be given in writing at the same time. Archie Bland and Nimo Omer take you to the top stories and what they mean, free every weekday morning Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The court is expected to hear that Rwanda’s fast-track vetting process does not allow the home secretary to identify vulnerabilities and ensure sufficient information about the risks faced by asylum seekers threatened with relocation. It will also be argued that the assessment system for UK arrivals is specifically designed to ensure that most fail, despite legitimate claims under human rights law. During an earlier hearing, the court was told that Rwanda had initially been excluded from the list of possible countries on human rights grounds. The judges heard that in an internal memo from March 2021, Foreign Office officials told the then foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, that if Rwanda was selected for the expulsion policy “we should be prepared to limit the UK’s positions on with Rwandan human rights and to absorb criticism arising from [the] British Parliament and NGO’. On another note, Foreign Office officials said they had advised Downing Street not to engage with several countries, including Rwanda, the court was told in written arguments. The court also heard the UK High Commissioner in Rwanda had previously stated it should not be used for politics, telling the government it had “been accused of recruiting refugees to carry out armed operations in neighboring countries”. Another official note in April this year said “the risk of fraud is very high” and “there is limited evidence as to whether these proposals will be a sufficient deterrent to those seeking to enter the UK illegally”, the judges said. The hearing began at 10 a.m. Monday before Lewis and Swift. At least 40 lawyers were in court. More than 20,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats since Patel announced the deal with Kigali. The number of small boat arrivals this year is expected to surpass last year’s total sometime this month. In her final appearance in parliament as home secretary, Patel defended the government’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda, telling MPs: “This partnership is very clear in terms of standards, the treatment of people being taken to Rwanda, the resources available. and also processing how each applicant is treated.’
