LONDON, England
Britain's Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the government's scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, dealing a crushing blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak before an election expected next year.
Under the plan, Britain
intended to send tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrived on its shores
without permission to the East African country in a bid to deter migrants
crossing the Channel from Europe in small boats.
But the top court on Wednesday
unanimously ruled that migrants could not be sent to Rwanda because it could
not be considered a safe third country.
The Rwanda scheme was the
central plank of Sunak's immigration policy as he prepares to face an election
next year, amid concern among some voters about the numbers of asylum seekers
arriving in small boats.
The ruling sparked an angry
response from some lawmakers in the right wing of his party, who said the
government should consider pulling out of the European Convention on Human
Rights, even though the court made clear its decision was based on a number of
laws and treaties, and not the Convention alone.
The ruling had taken on even
greater political significance in recent days after Sunak sacked Interior
Minister Suella Braverman, a popular figure on his party's right whose remit
included dealing with immigration.
She launched a scathing attack on
Sunak on Tuesday, saying he had broken promises on tackling immigration and
betrayed the British people.
Sunak said the government had
planned for all eventualities and would do whatever it takes to stop illegal
migration.
"Illegal migration
destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year," he
said in a statement. "We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes
to do so."
Sunak, whose Conservatives are
trailing by about 20 points in opinion polls, had made a promise to "stop
the boats", one of the five key pledges of his premiership.
This year more than 27,000
people have arrived on the southern English coast without permission, after a
record 45,755 were detected in 2022.
Critics, ranging from
opposition lawmakers as well as some in the governing Conservative Party to
church leaders and the United Nations refugee agency, had argued the policy was
flawed, immoral and simply would not work.
President Robert Reed said the
five judges involved agreed there were "substantial grounds for believing
that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement",
meaning being sent back to their country of origin where they could be at risk
of ill-treatment.
"The Supreme Court's
judgment is a victory for humanity," Steve Smith, chief executive of
refugee charity Care4Calais, said. "This grubby, cash-for-people deal was
always cruel and immoral but, most importantly, it is unlawful."
The Rwanda policy was
originally drawn up by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in an initial 140
million pound ($180 million) deal.
Whilst the court said it was
now unlawful, Reed left open the chance the scheme could be resurrected, saying
"the changes needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement may be delivered
in the future, but they have not been shown to be in place now".
After the ruling, a Rwandan
government spokesperson said it took issue with the conclusion that Rwanda was
not a safe third country.
No comments:
Post a Comment