Breaking: U.K. Supreme Court blocks government proposal to relocate migrants to Rwanda – Read more

U.K. top court rejects government plan to send migrants to Rwanda - National


E-mail : *

“UK Supreme Court Strikes Down Controversial Plan to Deport Asylum Seekers to Rwanda

The Supreme Court of Britain has ruled that the government’s proposal to send migrants to Rwanda is illegal, dealing a significant blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s administration and sparking international attention and criticism. The policy, aimed at deterring migrants from reaching Britain by small boats, has faced opposition from refugee and human rights groups.

Unanimous Verdict Against the Rwanda Policy

In a unanimous decision, five justices of the Supreme Court found that asylum-seekers sent to Rwanda could face a real risk of ill-treatment, with the country not providing adequate assurances to safeguard their rights. President of the Supreme Court Robert Reed cited Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including enforced disappearances and torture, as reasons to strike down the plan.

Critics of the Rwanda Plan

Opposition politicians, refugee groups, and human rights organizations have criticized the Rwanda policy, calling it unethical and unworkable. They argue that Rwanda is not a safe country to which asylum-seekers can be deported. Amnesty International urged the British government to put an end to what they called a disgraceful chapter in the country’s political history.

Heavy Cost and Future Plans

The ruling by the Supreme Court has left the government’s policy in tatters, with its cost estimated to be at least 140 million pounds (around $175 million) without any asylum-seeker being sent to Rwanda. The court also noted that Rwanda has a 100% rejection record for asylum-seekers, raising doubts about the fairness of the asylum determination process in the country.

Future Uncertainty

Despite the setback, it remains unclear whether the British government will attempt to keep the policy alive in the future. While some UK conservatives have called for drastic measures such as leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, the Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes the fundamental legal principle that refugees must not be returned to a country where they could face harm.


The Supreme Court’s ruling raises broader questions about how countries handle the complex issue of mass migration. As more people around the world seek refuge from war, violence, and environmental disasters, the need for a fair, humane, and sustainable approach to asylum-seekers becomes increasingly pressing. As Britain grapples with the aftermath of the Rwanda policy, the court’s decision underscores the importance of upholding international human rights law while finding effective solutions for migrants in need.”


Leave a Reply