International arbiters have rejected a Rwanda appeal for damages over the refugee resettlement deal it had signed with the previous British government, which was scrapped by incoming Prime Minister Keir Starmer immediately after taking office in 2024.
The contentious plan, which seemed at risk of being annulled by British courts anyway, foresaw sending migrants who arrive in the UK illegally seeking asylum to Rwanda, where they would be permitted apply for asylum and residency.
The incoming government called it a “gimmick” and a “shocking waste of taxpayer money,” saying Britain had already spent the better part of a billion pounds on a scheme that was unlikely ever to take effect as envisaged.
What was the case about?
Rwanda was appealing for two annual payments, each of 50 billion pounds (roughly €58 billion or $67 billion), originally due in April 2025 and 2026 — saying Starmer’s government, which took office in the summer of 2024, still owed it these installments.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration found that written diplomatic exchanges between the two countries after Starmer scrapped the deal in 2024 amounted to confimration that the UK would not be making the payments.
For 2025’s payment, the decision was a majority verdict; in 2026’s case, it was unanimous. The decision was dated May 15, but formally announced by the Hague-based panel on Monday.
“The UK robustly defended its position, and the tribunal has now ruled in favor of the UK on all grounds,” the British government said in response.
Government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said Rwanda “respects the tribunal’s award and considers the matter concluded” — albeit noting that the 2025 decision had been open to different interpretations.
What was the agreement?
The deal, struck by Starmer’s predecessor Rishi Sunak in 2022 and first floated by Boris Johnson before him, aimed to send migrants who arrived illegally in the UK seeking asylum to the East African country.
It included arrangements for payments to Rwanda’s government to help cover the costs.
The deal came amid public dissatisfaction in the UK with irregular migration and pressure on the then-Conservative government from more right-wing political forces, not least Nigel Farage, now the leader of Reform UK.
It also coincided with a sharp increase in legal migration, which came despite — or indeed because of — the UK leaving the European Union, a step that advocates like Farage and former Prime Minsiter Boris Johnson had said would lead to reduced migration.
Why was it contentious?
The deal had already run into domestic legal difficulties prior to Labour, which said it would abolish the plan during campaigning, winning the 2024 election and scrapping it.
In November 2023, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled that the policy was unlawful. The court said the agreement left people sent to Rwanda open to human rights breaches and that it could not be implemented in its current form. The bill was amended and put through parliament again, but it passed just weeks before elections the Conservatives seemed sure to lose and so never faced renewed legal scrutiny.
Earlier in 2023, flights carrying migrants to Rwanda had been prevented from taking off on the grounds that the deal might not comply with British law. Ultimately, only four people were sent to the East African country on a voluntary basis, the only way it was permissible, before the accord was scrapped.
“The previous government’s policy wasted time and 700 million [pounds] of taxpayer money to send four volunteers to Rwanda,” a spokesman for the current government alleged.
Rwanda and Starmer’s government had already clashed over Britain reducing aid payments to Rwanda, accusing it of supporting the M23 rebel group in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which Kigali denies.
Tired of missing our real-time updates? Click here to add us as a Preferred Source on Google. Then tap the “Star” or “Preferred” to keep DW News at the top of your feed.
Edited by: Roshni Majumdar
