On Thursday, the Court of Appeal found that the UK government’s intention to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was illegal since the African country could not be designated a secure third country.
Three judges ruled that unless deficiencies in Rwanda’s asylum system are addressed, the removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful.
They agreed with migrants and campaigners who argued that the UK government could not guarantee that asylum seekers who moved to Rwanda would not be returned back to their home country.
The judges said, “The deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries, where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment”.
A majority of judges were not persuaded by Rwanda’s assurances, saying that while offered in good faith, the evidence presented does not establish that the necessary changes had by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the proposed removals.
“As a result, sending anyone to Rwanda would be a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights”, they noted, which specifies that no one shall be subjected to torture, cruel or degrading treatment, or punishment.
Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed the plan to address the record number of migrants crossing the Channel by small boats from northern France.
However, it sparked a flood of complaints from human rights organizations and charities, and last-minute legal challenges successfully stopped the first deportation flights last June.
Several individuals who landed in tiny boats, as well as charities that support migrants, filed a complaint in London’s High Court, saying that the strategy was illegal for various reasons, including Rwanda’s classification as a safe third nation.
Also read: Rishi Sunak: Want To Strike Truly Ambitious Trade Deal With India
