The Safety of Rwanda Act: Impacts on the Principle of Non-Refoulement and Refugeeism
The “Safety of Rwanda Act”, also referred to as the UK-Rwanda Migrant Deal or the MEDP (Migration and Economic Development Partnership), was passed by the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament on April 25, 2024, despite the UK Supreme Court holding that the deal was unlawful in November of 2023. This Migrant Deal controversially legalized the deportation of asylum seekers, who entered the UK illegally, to Rwanda. This received backlash from the public and legal scholars, who claimed that the MEDP could place asylum seekers in unsafe living conditions and put their livelihoods at risk.
The “Safety of Rwanda Act” threatens the principle of non-refoulement, which was created during the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention), due to claims of faulty legal processes within the Rwandan asylum seeker system. Moreover, the Convention’s definition of a refugee as seen in the precedent-setting case of Islam v SSHD; R v IAT ex p Shah can be applied to current asylum seekers.
Since its creation, the principle of non-refoulement has been recognized by various treaties signed by the UK, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984 (UNCAT). The Geneva Convention states that a refugee cannot be expelled to a territory where life would be threatened because of “race, religion, nationality, [social group, political opinion].” The UNCAT also provides that refugees cannot be expelled to a state where they may be subjected to danger. Furthermore, the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) declares that contracting parties must protect persons from inhumane treatment.
The Supreme Court opposed Parliament’s support of MEDP. In its ruling concerning the Migrant Deal, the Court held that “there are substantial grounds for believing that the removal of the claimants to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement.” The Court utilized the legal basis of non-refoulement, the UK’s participation in its creation, and the incorrect legal processing by the UK’s Divisional Court as reasoning for the judgment. In addition, the Court held that Rwanda is not a safe enough country for asylum seekers due to its flawed asylum processing system.
The principle of non-refoulement is violated by the UK-Rwanda Migrant Deal as asylum seekers face a risk of harm if they are processed in Rwanda. For example, in 2021, the “[UK] government criticised Rwanda for ‘extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody… disappearances and torture.’” In 2018, Rwandan police killed at least 12 refugees who were protesting over food ration cuts. Furthermore, a review made on the asylum processing system in Rwanda done by the Home Office was further evaluated by The Independence Advisory Group on Country Information (IAGCI). The IAGCI stated that critical information was missing: “[there are a] lack of reasons or transcripts provided to asylum seekers to base their appeal on; delays in decisions; [a lack of] protection assurances against refoulement… leading to [the] denial of access to the Rwandan territory let alone to the asylum process; lack of information regarding provisions for asylum seekers and access to interpretation services.” Because of these flaws in the Rwandan asylum system, and per the MEDP agreement, rejected claims can cause the removal of an asylum seeker back to their country of origin, which in many cases poses a risk to them.
Notwithstanding the MEDP, pathways that have been used for gaining refugee status in the UK without infringing on the principle of non-refoulement include the precedent-setting case of Islam v SSHD; R v IAT ex p Shah that discusses the UK’s legal definition of a refugee and asylum seeker. This judgment was delivered on March 25th, 1999. In this case, two asylum-seeking women who were victims of persecution in their shared country of origin were allowed to stay in the UK. Both women were entitled to refugee status because of the Convention. Due to this protection, the UK, despite being against its self-interest, was obligated to allow both women to stay as refugees. The Convention stipulates that a refugee is “owing to [a] well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable… to avail himself of the protection of that country.”
However, the road to asylum was not easy for these women. Their claims were initially rejected and subsequently appealed. They were denied again by the Court of Appeals so they appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords overturned the Court of Appeals decision and ruled in favor of both women, citing that “the women were members of a particular social group and were therefore entitled to the protection of the Convention and of the UK.” Both women had to prove, by the Convention’s terms, a legitimate fear of persecution. The fact that they were both women was not reason enough to allow them to reside in the UK. They were permitted to stay because they were from the same country, and the background of their cases was similar; therefore, they fell under the “particular social group” category of the Convention. The findings and precedent-setting nature of this decision can be applied to the current refugee situation in the UK. Under this precedent, individuals may be granted asylum in the UK if they can prove the Convention terms apply to their circumstances.
The UK-Rwanda Migrant Deal has caused rifts between the UK’s government and its citizens. The Migrant Deal threatens the principle of non-refoulement that was instituted during the 1951 Convention and has been upheld since. If relocated to Rwanda from the UK, asylum seekers would face improper processing that is in breach of the principle of non-refoulement and the stipulations made by the Convention (highlighted in Islam v SSHD; R v IAT ex p Shah).
Edited by Sacha Toberoff