Rwanda plan 'fundamentally incompatible' with UK’s human rights obligations



Demonstrators hold placards as they protest against Britain’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, outside the High Court in London on June 13, 2022

 [NIKLAS HALLE’N/AFP via Getty Images]

MEMO
February 12, 2024


The British government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is fundamentally incompatible with the country’s human rights obligations, according to a joint committee report released today.

“Measures intended to remove barriers to sending individuals to Rwanda, including mandating that courts treat Rwanda as a ‘safe’ country and limiting access to courts to appeal decisions, are incompatible with the UK’s human rights obligations,” warned MPs and peers from the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The controversial bill aims to address the concerns of the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that the government’s original plan to send asylum seekers to the East African country was unlawful.

“The bill’s near total exclusion of judicial scrutiny seeks to undermine the constitutional role of the domestic courts in holding the executive to account,” said the report.

READ: UK rejects Palestinian’s student visa in spite of previously providing her a scholarship

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has warned: “The Bill would erode protection for human rights provided by the Human Rights Act, contravene rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights and fall short of the UK’s commitments under international treaties.

“The Bill places the UK’s hard-won reputation for human rights and the rule of law into jeopardy,” said Joanna Cherry, chair of the committee.

The Rwanda plan had been one of the most controversial plans of the government’s migration policy as it sparked international criticism and mass protests across the UK.

In January 2023, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that tackling small boat crossings by irregular migrants across the English Channel is among five priorities of his government as more than 45,000 migrants arrived in the UK through that route in 2022.

UK plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda incompatible with human rights, parliamentary watchdog says

Copyright © africanews

Associated Press

By Rédaction Africanews with AP

UNITED KINGDOM

The British government's plan to send some asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is "fundamentally incompatible" with the U.K.'s human rights obligations, a parliamentary rights watchdog said Monday, as the contentious bill returned for debate in the House of Lords.

Parliament's unelected upper chamber is scrutinizing a bill designed to overcome the U.K. Supreme Court's ruling that the Rwanda plan is illegal. The court said in November that the East African nation is not a safe country for migrants.

The Safety of Rwanda Bill pronounces the country safe, makes it harder for migrants to challenge deportation and allows the British government to ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights that seek to block removals.

Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has members from both government and opposition parties, said in a report that the bill "openly invites the possibility of the U.K. breaching international law" and allows British officials "to act in a manner that is incompatible with human rights standards."

Scottish National Party lawmaker Joanna Cherry, who chairs the committee, said the bill "risks untold damage to the U.K.'s reputation as a proponent of human rights."

"This bill is designed to remove vital safeguards against persecution and human rights abuses, including the fundamental right to access a court," she said. "Hostility to human rights is at its heart and no amendments can salvage it."

The Home Office said the Rwanda plan is a "bold and innovative" solution to a "major global challenge."

"Rwanda is clearly a safe country that cares deeply about supporting refugees," it said in a statement. "It hosts more than 135,000 asylum seekers and stands ready to relocate people and help them rebuild their lives."

Under the policy, asylum-seekers who reach the U.K. in small boats across the English Channel would have their claims processed in Rwanda, and stay there permanently. The plan is key to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's pledge to "stop the boats" bringing unauthorized migrants to the U.K. Sunak argues that deporting unauthorized asylum-seekers will deter people from making risky journeys and break the business model of people-smuggling gangs.

Human rights groups call the plan inhumane and unworkable, and no one has yet been sent to Rwanda.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling, Britain and Rwanda signed a treaty pledging to strengthen protections for migrants. Sunak's Conservative government argues the treaty allows it to pass a law declaring Rwanda a safe destination.

The bill was approved by the House of Commons last month, though only after 60 members of Sunak's governing Conservatives rebelled to make the legislation tougher.

It is now being scrutinized by the Lords, many of whom want to defeat or water down the bill. Unlike the Commons, the governing Conservatives do not hold a majority of seats in the Lords.

Ultimately, the upper house can delay and amend legislation but can't overrule the elected Commons.

 

UK’s Rwanda plan incompatible with rights obligations: lawmakers

By

 AFP

The UK government’s latest legislation to revive its controversial plan to send migrants to Rwanda is “not compatible” with the country’s rights obligations, a watchdog panel of British lawmakers warned Monday.

The ruling Conservatives introduced the so-called Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill late last year, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that deporting asylum seekers to Kigali is illegal under international law.

If passed after ongoing scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament, the legislation would compel UK judges to treat Rwanda as a safe third country.

It would also give government ministers powers to disregard sections of international and British human rights legislation.

But after a detailed review, parliament’s own Joint Committee on Human Rights said in a new report that it had various concerns.

“By denying access to a court to challenge the safety of Rwanda the Bill is not compatible with the UK’s international obligations,” the committee concluded in its 52-page report.

It noted the proposed law appeared incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, in particular, as well as domestic rights law.

The committee, which features five Conservative lawmakers among its 12 members, warned enacting it held many pitfalls, including “undermining the rights-compliant culture that should exist in all public bodies” in the UK.

Globally, the law also “risks damaging” Britain’s hard-earned reputation for rights protections and “encouraging other states who are less respectful of the international legal order”.

Meanwhile, the report criticised allowing ministers rather than judges to determine whether a country like Rwanda is safe or not.

“The question of Rwanda’s safety would best be determined not by legislation but by allowing the courts to consider the new treaty and the latest developments on the ground,” the report stated.

The draft law is central to the government’s policy to combat “irregular immigration” to Britain, in particular via small boats crossing the Channel, by deporting arrivals to the East African country.

It has been criticised by opposition parties as well as various international bodies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

But Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, facing an uphill battle to win a general election due later this year, has vowed to press ahead, winning a knife-edge parliamentary vote in the lower House of Commons on the legislation last month.

Members of the upper House of Lords chamber, which includes former senior judges, are due to renew their debate on it Monday, with many having already expressed deep unease about parts of the plan.

 

Parliamentary rights committee: Safety of Rwanda Bill is fundamentally incompatible with UK’s human rights obligations

Summary

New reports by Joint Committee on Human Rights and Lords Select Committee on the Constitution warn Bill breaches international obligations

By EIN

Date of Publication:

12 February 2024

Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has today published the report of its inquiry in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.

Image credit: UK GovernmentYou can download the 52-page report here or read it online here.

The focus of the Committee's inquiry and report is on whether the Safety of Rwanda Bill is compatible with the UK's human rights obligations. The Bill was subjected to detailed line by line scrutiny by the JCHR as part of its inquiry. Very notably, the Committee finds the Bill is fundamentally incompatible with those obligations.

Indeed, the Committee finds the Bill goes further than ever before and disapplies almost all of the key provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of removals to Rwanda and thereby undermines the fundamental principle of the universality of human rights.

As the Bill allows government ministers to decide whether or not to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Bill openly invites the possibility of the UK breaching international law.

The Government maintains that Rwanda is now a safe country for asylum seekers despite the Supreme Court finding in November that is was not, but the JCHR found the evidence was not clear to support the Government's position.

"We have considered the Government's evidence that Rwanda is now safe, but have also heard from witnesses and bodies including the UNHCR that Rwanda remains unsafe, or at least that there is not enough evidence available at this point to be sure of its safety. Overall, we cannot be clear that the position reached on Rwanda's safety by the country's most senior court is no longer correct. In any event, the courts remain the most appropriate branch of the state to resolve contested issues of fact, so the question of Rwanda's safety would best be determined not by legislation but by allowing the courts to consider the new treaty and the latest developments on the ground," the report states.

The JCHR finds that by denying access to a court to challenge the claim that Rwanda is safe, the Bill is not compatible with the UK's international obligations, most obviously Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The report states: "Clause 4 of the Bill would mitigate the Bill's impact by allowing for claims based on individual circumstances. It would not, however, make the Bill compliant with the Refugee Convention or with Article 13 ECHR because it would continue to deny access to court for individuals with arguable claims that they face persecution or a violation of fundamental human rights as a result of Rwanda being unsafe generally or because there is a risk of refoulement. Neither would clause 4 provide for a suspensive process, as required by Article 13 ECHR, in all but the rarest of circumstances."

Joanna Cherry QC MP, the chair of the Committee, said: "This Bill is designed to remove vital safeguards against persecution and human rights abuses, including the fundamental right to access a court. Hostility to human rights is at its heart and no amendments can salvage it. This isn't just about the rights and wrongs of the Rwanda policy itself. By taking this approach, the Bill risks untold damage to the UK's reputation as a proponent of human rights internationally. Human rights aren't inconvenient barriers that must be overcome to reach policy goals, they are fundamental protections that ensure individuals are not harmed by Government action. If a policy is sound it should be able to withstand judicial scrutiny, not run away from it."

Last week, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution published an 18-page report on the Bill, which can be downloaded here.

It warns starkly that Clause 1(2)(b) of the Bill (which "gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country") is constitutionally inappropriate and could be interpreted as a breach of the separation of powers between Parliament and the courts.

The Lords Committee said: "The sovereignty of the UK Parliament is a long-established principle of the UK constitution. Nevertheless, there are constitutional consequences when legislation is enacted that significantly impacts the separation of powers. This is constitutionally inappropriate because it provides a potential precedent in which legislation could be used to effectively reverse factual conclusions, jeopardising the rule of law as well as the separation of powers."

The Lords Committee finds it is possible that the Bill's provisions are incompatible with the UK's obligations in international law under both the ECHR and the Refugee Convention.

"We reiterate that respect for the rule of law requires respect for international law. Legislation that undermines the UK's international law obligations threatens the rule of law. We invite the House to consider the consequences should the enactment of this Bill in its current form breach the UK's international obligations," the report states.

Clause 2 of the Bill prevents legal challenges against the safety of Rwanda, which the Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said would reduce access to justice and the protection of rights. The Committee asks the House of Lords to consider whether these restrictions are constitutionally appropriate.

In addition, the Lords Committee noted that Clause 5 of the Bill (allowing a minister to decide whether to comply with an interim measure of the ECtHR) "raises serious constitutional concerns" given the impact on the independence of the judiciary.