British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Rwandan President Paul Kagame on Wednesday expressed their “firm commitment» implement its project that provides for the expulsion to Rwanda of immigrants who arrived illegally in the United Kingdom, which has just been declared illegal by the British Supreme Court.

During a telephone interview, “The two leaders reiterated their strong commitment to making (their) immigration partnership work and agreed to take the necessary steps to ensure that this policy is sound and legal.“Downing Street said in a statement.

The British Supreme Court declares the project illegal

Hours earlier, the British Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the government's highly controversial plan to deport asylum seekers who arrived illegally in the United Kingdom to Rwanda was unlawful. The five senior judges unanimously rejected the Home Office's appeal and upheld the appeal court's conclusion that the policy is unlawful. This decision, which, as the president of the Supreme Court, Robert Reed, insisted, is based on legal reasons and in no way political, immediately means the end of an emblematic measure of the policy of combating illegal immigration of the Conservative Prime Minister.

The leader indicated that the government now had “consider next steps” and argued that the Supreme Court “confirmed that the principle of sending illegal immigrants to a safe third country is legal“If Rishi Sunak could have rejoiced at the beginning of the morning about having met his goal of halving inflation, this decision just three hours later sounds like a harsh setback for the Prime Minister and his promise to “stop the boats» of immigrants in the English Channel.

More than 27,000 migrants have crossed since the beginning of the year, compared to 45,000 in 2022, a record. Announced a year and a half ago, under the government of Boris Johnson, the project to send migrants to Rwanda, regardless of their origin, was never put into practice. In mid-2022, a first flight was canceled at the last minute following a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Then, at the end of last June, the London Court of Appeal ruled that the project “illegal“, considering that Rwanda, in its current state, could not be considered “safe third country“.

Risk of “chases»

The judges had estimated that there are “a real risk that people sent to Rwanda will be (then) returned to their country of origin, where they were subject to persecution and other inhumane treatment“. A reasoning validated on Wednesday by the Supreme Court. The agreement with Rwanda provided for London to pay Kigali 140 million pounds sterling (160 million euros), a sum intended for development aid and care for expelled immigrants, with the idea of ​​allowing them to settle in the African country.

In a scathing letter on Tuesday responding to her sacking the previous day, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman accused Rishi Sunak of “irresponsibility» and not having prepared a “credible plan B“in case of failure. The leader of the Labor opposition Keir Starmer had already warned that he would return to this project if he entered Downing Street. “It is not the right policy and is extremely expensive.“he declared.

During last month's hearing before the Supreme Court, Home Office lawyer James Eadie said there was a “urgent need to take measures that have a deterrent effect» for those who undertake these “dangerous crossings“.

A decision challenged by Kigali

Kigali has “disputed» the decision of the British Supreme Court, the Rwandan Government spokesperson told AFP. “Ultimately, this is a decision for the UK justice system to decide. However, we question the decision that Rwanda is not a safe third country for asylum seekers and refugees.“, declared Yolande Makolo.

In terms of human rights, Rwanda, led with an iron fist by Paul Kagame, is regularly singled out for its harsh repression of political opposition and its lack of respect for freedom of expression. “We take our humanitarian responsibilities seriously and will continue to fulfill them.“said Yolande Makolo.

The leader of the main opposition party, the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, Frank Habineza, for his part “welcomed the decision of the UK Supreme Court“.”We believe that countries like the UK should not transfer their obligations to Rwanda.“he continued, stating that the agreement was not respected”fundamental rights of asylum seekers“.

“Serious concerns”

Intervening in the procedure, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that a “an accessible, reliable, fair and efficient asylum system» was missing in Rwanda and remembered that he “constantly expressed serious concerns” in this file.

The government has continued to toughen its rhetoric on immigration. In July, London passed a law prohibiting immigrants who arrived illegally in the United Kingdom from applying for asylum, regardless of the reasons that led them to flee their country.

The UN denounced a law contrary to international law and expressed concern because “other countries, including Europe» are tempted to follow this path. The expulsion of migrants to Rwanda is among a series of measures by the British government that have attracted fierce opposition, whether from human rights activists or sometimes even members of the majority.