Expulsion of migrants to Rwanda | London returns to the charge

Despite the difficulties encountered, the British government says it is determined to move forward with the expulsion to Rwanda of migrants who arrived irregularly on its territory. Parliament passed a muscular bill on Monday that aims to restrict the courts’ ability to intervene in the process.

A project undermined from the start

The Conservative Party made its mark by announcing in 2022 the conclusion of an agreement providing for the transfer to Rwanda of asylum seekers arriving on British soil via the Channel aboard inflatable boats. The project, supposed to discourage this type of expedition, was quickly slowed down by the courts. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) blocked in extremis the departure of the first plane before the Supreme Court recognizes in 2023 the illegal nature of the law. The country’s highest court ruled that people denied refugee status by Kigali risked being returned to their country of origin, contravening British commitments in this area.

A new attempt

Rather than abandon its plan, the government went back to the drawing board and concocted a new bill that officially identifies Rwanda as a safe country for sending asylum seekers. He orders British officials and judges to reject any attempt to block forced transfers based on the risk of migrants being pushed back to their country of origin. The Parliament’s declaration is based in particular on a new agreement which should allow the regime of Rwandan President Paul Kagame to strengthen the mechanisms for handling asylum requests in the country.

Sunak exults, the UN worries

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary James Cleverly said passing the law would prevent migrants using “false allegations of abuse” to remain on British soil. “I promised to clear the way to allow the departure of the first plane. That’s what we did,” said Mr. Cleverly. At the same time, the United Nations was concerned about the British strategy. In an analysis published in January, the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees had already warned that the reforms promised by Rwanda would take years to materialize and would not, in the meantime, meet international standards for processing applications. asylum.

The separation of powers flouted

François Crépeau, former United Nations rapporteur on the rights of migrants, believes that the new bill violates the separation of judicial and legislative powers by seeking to impose on British courts the obligation to recognize Rwanda as a safe country. “Telling judges not to get involved in the issue is inconceivable,” he emphasizes. Chris Law, an English lawyer who is very critical of the government’s immigration policies, notes that the government is “suspending” with its initiative the application of certain articles of law formalizing the United Kingdom’s international commitments in terms of the right to asylum and could prove difficult to counter.

Human rights

The two specialists agree that the European Court of Human Rights is likely, in the long term, to criticize the bill. The text adopted by the British Parliament, however, provides that the responsible minister will be able to decide whether it is necessary to respect a temporary injunction from the European court blocking the sending of migrants to Rwanda. “This is the most dramatic legal provision I have seen on human rights in my career,” notes Mr. Law, who criticizes Rishi Sunak for wanting to revise crucial international commitments of the United Kingdom “to basely political reasons.

An electoral objective?

Chris Law is convinced that the Conservative government’s stubbornness regarding its Rwandan project stems from the conviction that it can regain health in the polls before the elections scheduled for this year by adopting a hard line on immigration. In 2023, nearly 30,000 migrants will reach the English coast aboard makeshift boats. “I am certain that they will call elections after having succeeded in getting the first planes to leave,” notes the lawyer. François Crépeau notes that the use of this vulnerable population for political purposes is nothing original. “Migration policies are made by non-migrants for non-migrants,” he quips.