The British High Court has rejected the government’s plan to transfer asylum seekers arriving across the English Channel to Rwanda. According to Sky News, the Court only assessed whether Rwanda was a “safe third country” to send migrants to. The five judges (Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs and Lord Sales) unanimously rejected the plan, defining the transfer of migrants as “illegal”. «The Supreme Court unanimously rejects the appeal of the Ministry of the Interior and confirms the conclusion of the Court of Appeal – we read in the operative part of the sentence – This is because there are well-founded reasons to believe that asylum seekers would flee a real risk of ill-treatment » if they were sent back to their country of origin after being rejected in Rwanda.
The first reaction came immediately. Rwanda is in fact “disagreeing” with the British High Court decision that does not consider it a safe third country for transferring asylum seekers arriving in the United Kingdom. “This is ultimately a decision of the UK judicial system,” said Rwandan government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo, adding that “however, we disagree with the decision that Rwanda is not a safe third country for asylum seekers and refugees, in terms of rejection.” Rwanda and the United Kingdom worked together to “ensure the integration of resettled asylum seekers into Rwandan society”. It was also specified that the African country “is committed to respecting its international obligations and we have been recognized by UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees”. A bad situation for Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government.
Source: IL Tempo
John Cameron is a journalist at The Nation View specializing in world news and current events, particularly in international politics and diplomacy. With expertise in international relations, he covers a range of topics including conflicts, politics and economic trends.
