The bill on Rwanda’s security (asylum and immigration) received a wave of criticism

A wave of criticism followed the passage of Rwanda’s Security (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.

Image credit: WikipediaThe Rwanda Security (Asylum and Immigration) Bill successfully completed its progress through Parliament last night after the House of Lords finally relented and approved the Bill.

It is understood that the bill will receive royal assent today and become the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said yesterday that the first flight to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda would take place in 10 to 12 weeks and that there would then be “a regular rhythm of several flights per month throughout the summer and beyond until the boats are stopped”.

Filippo Grandi, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), reaffirmed in a statement today that the new law would violate international law.

Grandi said: “The new legislation marks a further step away from the long British tradition of providing shelter for those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention. Protecting refugees requires that all countries – and not just neighboring crisis areas – fulfill their obligations. This settlement aims to shift responsibility for refugee protection, undermine international cooperation and set a worrying global precedent.”

He called on the UK government to reconsider its plans, adding: “The UK has a proud history of effective, independent judicial oversight. The country can still take the right steps and implement measures to address the factors that push people to leave their homes. and share responsibility for those in need of protection with European and other international partners.”

Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned that the new law seriously hampers the rule of law in Britain.

“By shifting responsibility for refugees, reducing the ability of the British courts to scrutinize removal decisions, limiting access to legal remedies in Britain and limiting the scope of domestic and international human rights protection for a specific group of people, this new legislation undermines the rule of law in the UK and sets a dangerous precedent worldwide. It is crucial for the protection of the human rights and dignity of refugees and migrants seeking protection that all removals from the United Kingdom are carried out after assessing their specific individual circumstances, in strict compliance with the rules. international human rights and refugee law.”

Two United Nations human rights experts warned yesterday that removals to Rwanda would be unlawful and that airlines or aviation regulators facilitating the removals could be complicit in violating internationally protected human rights and court orders.

The experts stressed that releasing asylum seekers to Rwanda, where they risk deportation, would violate the right to be free from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

More than 250 NGOs today wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister to express their outrage at the new legislation, calling it “a shameful and performatively cruel law” that will put people seeking safety at great risk of mental and physical harm.

“Despite the Supreme Court’s clear ruling, the government is rewriting the facts to avoid our responsibilities to refugees. By doing so, the government would be breaking international law and further destroying the UK’s commitment to justice and the rule of law. This is a targeted attack on refugees and migrants, an attack on the rights of one group is an attack on us all,” the NGOs said.

The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O’Flaherty, said in a statement today that the passage of the bill raises major questions about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law in Britain in general.

O’Flaherty said: “I am concerned that in most cases the Rwanda Act allows for the implementation of a policy of removing people to Rwanda without any prior assessment of their asylum claims by the British authorities. In particular, the Act prevents individuals are faced with Rwanda being denied access to legal remedies for potential breaches of the absolute ban on refoulement, while it also significantly forecloses the ability of UK courts to fully and independently investigate the issues brought before them.”

Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, said the new law was Orwellian law and would only worsen the chaos in the asylum system, at huge cost to taxpayers.

He continued: “Even under the government’s best-case scenario, the Rwanda program will remove no more than 5,000 people per year from the tens of thousands of people excluded from the asylum system. Inexplicably, the government would rather pay to care for the refugees. The Prime Minister is said to have never been able to provide any evidence that the Rwanda plan will deter refugees from coming to Britain ‘deterrent doesn’t work’ when he was Chancellor.

“The truth is that the Rwanda plan is a plan that makes headlines with sound bites and slogans. It will do nothing to fix the government’s broken asylum system. To truly create a fair and controlled asylum system, we need fast and accurate decision-making on asylum claims may not sound as flashy as the Rwanda plan, but the principle of a fair hearing underpins the global refugee rulebook that Britain helped draft it after the Second World War. The government must stop wasting time and money and start processing asylum applications again.”

Sacha Deshmukh, the Chief Executive of Amnesty International UK, said in a press release that the passing of the bill was a “national disgrace” and would leave a stain on Britain’s moral reputation.

“The bill is built on a deeply authoritarian idea that attacks one of the most fundamental roles of the courts: the ability to look at evidence, decide the facts of a case and apply the law accordingly. It is absurd that the courts are forced to treat Rwanda as a ‘safe country’ and are prohibited from considering all evidence to the contrary.