The British Supreme Court considered this Wednesday that the plan to expel asylum seekers who arrive irregularly in the country to Rwanda is illegal, a serious blow to the conservative government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
(Also: King Charles III celebrates his 75th birthday with a project against food poverty)
The senior magistrates thus agreed with the British Court of Appeal, which decided that Rwanda cannot be considered a safe third country.
(You can read: ‘We did everything we could’: British baby whose case was a legal dispute dies)
Applauded by human rights defense associations, this decision, made unanimously by the five high justices, is based on legal and not political reasons, insisted the president of the court, Robert Reed.
“We conclude that the Court of Appeal was entitled to consider that there are serious grounds to believe that the removal of the applicants to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment,” Reed said.
The Court of Appeal was entitled to consider that there are serious grounds to believe that the deportation of the applicants to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment.
After hearing the decision, Sunak indicated that His government is preparing a “new treaty” with Rwanda, and considered that the principle of sending clandestine immigrants to a third country has no legal obstacles.
(Also: Former Prime Minister David Cameron will be the head of Foreign Affairs in the United Kingdom)
“If it becomes clear that our national legal frameworks or our international conventions continue to hinder us, I am ready to modify our laws and re-examine these international relations,” he added, when some disputers in his party demand to leave the European Court of Human Rights.
For its part, the Rwandan government, through a spokesperson, expressed its “disagreement with the decision that we are not a safe third country for asylum seekers and refugees.”
(You can read: This was Charles III’s first ‘Speech of the King’ before the British Parliament)
Key measure for Sunak
Sunak had bet heavily on this measure, which was highly controversial, but which he considered decisive in reducing immigration, which is projected as a key issue in the general elections scheduled for 2024.
In an angry letter released on Tuesday, the former Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, dismissed on Monday by the Prime Minister, accused Sunak of “irresponsibility” and having failed to prepare a “credible plan B” in case the Supreme Court struck down the project.
For his part, the leader of the Labor Party, Keir Starmer, favorite in the polls, has already warned that he would review the plan if he reaches Downing Street.
(Keep reading: Boris Johnson’s former advisors denounce his ‘incompetent management’ of covid-19)
“It is not a good political measure and it is extremely costly,” he declared.
In power for a year, Sunak vowed to “end the boats” carrying migrants crossing the English Channel.
More than 27,000 vessels have crossed it since the beginning of the year, compared to 45,000 in 2022, which was a record.
The plan to send migrants to Rwanda, regardless of their origin, was announced a year and a half ago during the government of conservative Boris Johnson, but was blocked by the courts.
(You can read: Greta Thunberg pleads ‘not guilty’ in London of a crime of public disorder)
Controversial plan
In mid-2022, a first flight was canceled following a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Then, at the end of last June, the Court of Appeal in London ruled that the project is “illegal” and concluded that Rwanda cannot be considered a “safe third country.”
The judges determined that there is “a real risk that people sent to Rwanda would be returned to their country of origin, where they were subject to persecution and other inhumane treatment”.
(Keep reading: Tragedy in Italy: Colombian woman is saved by a neighbor from being murdered by her partner)
The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), which participated in the process, stressed in its conclusions that it has “consistently expressed serious concerns”, stressing that Rwanda lacks an “accessible, reliable, fair and effective asylum system”.
For its part, the British government has continued to toughen its discourse on immigration. In July, London voted a law that prohibits immigrants who arrive irregularly from seeking asylum, regardless of the reasons that prompted them to flee.
The UN denounced that it was contrary to international law and expressed concern that “other countries, including in Europe” would be tempted to follow this path.
AFP
#British #Supreme #Court #strikes #government #plan #expel #irregular #migrants #Rwanda