Rumors have circulated for months about the controversial plans, but nothing has come of previous Home Office ideas, both confirmed and unconfirmed, to stop the growing number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK on small boats, including wave machines in the English Channel and a turn around boats policy. While the government was undoubtedly under political pressure from the huge increase in crossings – more than 25,000 so far this year – the policy of exporting asylum seekers from one of the world’s richest countries to one of the world’s poorest countries, 4,000 miles away, was so radical that no other country had attempted anything similar. The five-day hearing into the home secretary’s handling of asylum and human rights claims for Rwandan cases and key aspects of the removal policy opened on Monday and concluded on Friday. When the deal was announced, details on how it would work were scant. But the high court case challenging various aspects of the policy has revealed what happened behind the scenes, thanks to the government’s release of a trove of internal documents. Although Sir James Eadie KC, representing the government, assured the court on Thursday that the system had specific safeguards built in and “there has been the most intensive investigation of this system imaginable”, little evidence emerged in the documents to give comfort to critics. . What the documents show, starting with a diplomatic cable from the British High Commissioner to Rwanda, dated September 18, 2020, are repeated concerns about the unsuitability of Rwanda as a destination country for asylum seekers. The High Commissioner expressed concern over the lack of freedom of speech and the disappearance of opponents of the country’s president, Paul Kagame. As the plans developed, criticisms from government officials multiplied: extrajudicial killings; the recruitment of refugees to conduct armed operations in neighboring countries, including children aged 15-17 to fight across the Rwandan border in eastern DRC; a human rights red flag assessment; and a clear recommendation to the director general of the Home Office on 23 April 2021 not to pursue Rwanda as an option. Rwanda was not on the list of seven countries with which it could further explore the plans. Indeed, it was on a separate list of 14 countries with which we should not make an agreement. But as of April 2021, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, along with Patel, took an active interest in Rwanda, along with two unnamed countries. A revelation from April 1, 2021 reads: “The Prime Minister himself is hunting.” No 10 asked if only sending a small number of asylum seekers would change the “political calculus”. The answer from officials continued to be a resounding “no.” As of June 2, 2021, Rwanda was not on the list of six countries. On 27 July, a stern warning was issued for Rwanda due to “human rights concerns and reputational risk”. The revelations do not explain what happened in the next 24 hours, but by July 28, Rwanda had been prioritized. UNHCR, which has had a significant presence in Rwanda since the 1994 genocide, was not informed of the details of the deal until it was publicly announced on April 14. Protesters against Rwandan politics gather outside the high court in London. Photo: Guy Smallman/Getty Images The revelations show the agency’s opposition to offshore processing deals, as “burden-shifting rather than responsibility-sharing” was widely known by the government. It was decided not to inform the High Commission before the announcement because “the engagement with the High Commission gives them more time to organize their campaign against these measures when they are announced”. When UNHCR discovered the deal, it raised concerns about refoulement – forcing a refugee or asylum seeker to return to a country or region where they are likely to face persecution – and an underdeveloped system for processing individual asylum claims. UNHCR provided evidence that almost all LGBTQ+ asylum seekers had left Rwanda due to an inability to progress their claims there, and found a 100% refusal rate for cases from Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. Many of the people the Ministry of Interior wants to send to Rwanda are from these countries. 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. Further evidence of torture emerged, with revelations stating that “techniques such as mock execution, suffocation and electric shocks are routine and widespread in Rwanda”. During the hearing, Laura Dubinsky KC, acting for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, issued a stern warning to the court that the agency did not consider Rwanda a safe third country to send asylum seekers. “The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is issuing a categorical warning,” he said, calling for an “embargo” on the system “because it will lead to a real risk of refoulement and violation of [UN refugee] contract”. Along with a payment of £120 million in development money, Rwanda received a previously undisclosed £20 million as an incentive to comply with the memorandum of understanding signed in April. However, if Rwanda violates the memorandum, it cannot be held accountable by any court. The case found that while asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will receive food and accommodation, they will have to pay their own legal fees for the first two stages of the asylum process. The two judges in the case, Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift, are unlikely to rule for some months as a related case from the charity Asylum Aid will be heard next month, followed by a decision on the two cases. At one point, as Eddy gave assurances to the court about the government’s safeguards, Lewis said: “Unless we are satisfied that Rwanda is safe, it doesn’t matter what the Secretary of State has done.” Some of the eight asylum seekers who are plaintiffs in the high court action, along with the charities Care4Calais and Detention Action and the PCS union, were under the control of smugglers on their way to the UK, so were not free to claim asylum in other European countries they passed, as Patel often urged asylum seekers to do. Some had learning disabilities and survived torture. One of those involved, a Syrian man known only as AAA, said of Rwanda: “If I go there, I will end my life.”
