Vantage | Why Rwanda sees UK's asylum plan as opportunity, court verdict as insult

The UK’s Rwanda plan was struck down on Wednesday. The plan was to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. The deal was to send anyone arriving illegally in the UK to Rwanda. They would be kept in the African nation. Their asylum requests would be processed by Rwandan authorities. Basically, it was a way to outsource Britain’s illegal immigration issues. But on Wednesday, Britain’s Supreme Court killed the plan. They called it unlawful. The court said asylum seekers sent to Rwanda were at risk of refoulement. What does that mean? Being sent back to where they came from. Meaning, refugees may be forced to return to the countries they fled, back to the dangers they escaped.

And that’s obviously a serious concern. The British Supreme Court recognised this. It said Rwanda was incapable of addressing this issue. “We accept the home secretary’s submission that the Rwandan government entered into the agreement in good faith and that the capacity of the Rwandan system to produce accurate and fair decisions can and will be built up. Nevertheless, asking ourselves whether there were substantial grounds for believing that a real risk of refoulement existed at the relevant time, we have concluded that there were the changes needed to eliminate the risk of reform and may be delivered in the future, but they have not been shown to be in place,” said Supreme Court President Robert Reed. So the top court upheld a lower court order. What did the lower court say? It had also blocked the Rwanda plan. On similar grounds, it questioned Rwanda’s “capacity to produce accurate and fair decisions”. And on Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court agreed with this. And it’s problematic. Whether or not you agree with the Rwanda plan, you have to agree with this. This particular reason for striking down the plan is patronising. It’s not about the humanitarian argument. It’s not about the human rights implications. The British courts have effectively said, “The Rwandans have good intentions, but they’re still learning how to do the right thing… They aren’t ready to handle complex problems like this.” It’s a cringeworthy argument. Not a great look for a country with a horrific coloniser past. Rwanda may not be a former British colony, but this self-righteousness will be familiar to Rwanda and many others across the world. So obviously, Kigali wasn’t pleased with the UK Supreme Court’s message. “So Rwanda accepts, respects this decision, but it does not agree with the point which states that no, refugees or migrants who would be sent to Rwanda would be unsafe,” said Alain Mukuralinda, deputy spokesperson for the Rwandan government. It is a bit insulting, but Rwanda’s objection was not just about the insult. It was also being practical. They did not agree to the deal out of charity. It was a business opportunity for them. Rwanda has received and spent money to get ready for immigrants. At least 140 million pounds—according to reports—that’s about 175 million US dollars. This was just for preparation. Using that money, Rwanda set up facilities to house the asylum seekers. “We used the money to prepare locations that would temporarily accommodate the migrants. We are not going to destroy the houses just because the agreement was not accepted by the courts,” said Mukuralinda. So the UK isn’t getting those 175 million dollars back. But Rwanda was expecting much more. The Sunak government had presented an estimate in June. They were going to spend about 215,000 dollars per deported asylum seeker. Of this, 130,000 dollars would go directly to Rwanda’s coffers. Again, that’s for every person deported. Now, Rwanda isn’t the wealthiest country in the world, and that money would have been a boost. Which explains why Rwanda hopes that the deal isn’t dead. “So if the English government is ready to propose another agreement, of course it will be carefully studied in relation to what happened in court. If there are other countries that are ready to make similar agreements to try to find a solution, Rwanda will be interested,” said the Rwandan government’s deputy spokesperson. They may be in luck. Rishi Sunak is looking for a way to circumvent the Supreme Court. He is planning to introduce an emergency resolution. “So I’m also announcing today that we will take the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation. This will enable parliament to confirm that with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe,” said the UK’s prime minister. He’s also going to introduce a new migration treaty with Rwanda and somehow make the country’s safety level measurable. It sounds a bit far-fetched, but Sunak seems ready to try anything. It may not be in the best interests of asylum seekers, but if it works, Rwanda, for one, may reap some real benefits. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost_’s views._ Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook,  Twitter and  Instagram.