The United Nations Refugee Agency (U.N.H.C.R.) testified in the London High Court that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda could subsequently be transferred to countries where they might face torture or death. In response, Rwanda has accused the U.N.H.C.R. of lying during the court proceedings. 

Rwanda stated on June 11th that the U.N. “seems intent on presenting fabricated allegations to U.K. courts about Rwanda’s treatment of asylum seekers, while still partnering with us to bring African migrants from Libya to safety in Rwanda.” The agency argued that Rwanda’s asylum system is inadequate. Although the British Parliament has passed a law designating Rwanda as a safe country for asylum seekers, the U.N. has warned U.K. judges that it might have new evidence in 2024 indicating that Rwanda has endangered asylum seekers. U.N.C.H.R. lawyer Laura Dubinsky said, “there was evidence of continuing refoulement in Rwanda, including this year.” Refoulement, as defined and prohibited by the United Nations is the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution. 

The Rwandan government claimed that the cases presented by the U.N.H.C.R. lawyers in court involved individuals who either had legal status in other countries but did not meet Rwanda’s entry requirements, or those who chose to leave voluntarily.

Britain’s ruling Conservative Party asserts that the deportation scheme aims to deter migrants from crossing the English Channel from northern France to the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Sunak has stated that the plan will be implemented if his party wins the July 4th election.

The U.N.H.C.R.’s testimony raises significant human rights concerns. Such warnings should not be taken lightly, especially when dealing with vulnerable populations seeking safety and protection. However, Rwanda’s vehement denial of these allegations and its claim that the U.N. Refugee Agency has fabricated accusations further complicates the situation. Rwanda’s assertion that it is being unfairly targeted, despite its cooperation with the U.N. to provide safety for African migrants from Libya, suggests a deeper diplomatic rift and mistrust between the parties involved.

It is essential to critically assess both sides of this argument. The U.N. believes Rwanda is not an adequate refuge for asylum seekers based on past evidence, and views the new U.K. jurisdiction as unlawful. Since Rwanda appears to be making efforts to help refugees, the primary focus should be on improving conditions within the country and addressing any refoulement concerns. Even if the claims made by the U.N. are false, looking into Rwanda’s refugee policy and practices will be beneficial. Additionally, since the U.K. plans to deport refugees to Rwanda, it is crucial to first resolve these issues within Rwanda. Ensuring the safety and well-being of asylum seekers would produce a better outcome compared to their forced relocation to states where they might face torture or death. 

However, it is possible to avoid mass deportations from Europe by focusing on improving the asylum system within the U.K., despite the new treaty with Rwanda signed by Sunak, which designates Rwanda as a safe country. If Sunak does not win the upcoming election, the implementation of the U.K.-Rwanda Asylum Partnership may not proceed.