New UK-Rwanda migration partnership raises key questions, debate

By Chiamaka Okafor

The UK government on April 14 announced a migration partnership with Rwanda that will see the investment of £120 million into the economic development and growth of the East African country.

Priti Patel, UK Home Secretary, said the policy will see migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claims processed in Rwanda.

Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in “one of the fastest-growing economies, recognised globally for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants”.

Jimmy Ogunshakin, a lawyer and academic in the U.K., described the new policy as suspect, “because there is an inconsistency in the rules of natural justice in the way the government is applying the rule of law and the rule of natural justice.”

According to Mr Ogunshakin, the rule of natural justice wants everyone to be treated fairly and equally regardless of skin colour, characteristics of the UK equality law of 2010, “you will expect a level playing field”.

Ms Patel in her speech announcing the partnership said the partnership will see those arriving “dangerously, illegally or unnecessarily into the UK” relocated to have their claims for asylum considered and, if recognised as refugees, to build their lives there.

“This will help break the people smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life, while ensuring protection for the genuinely vulnerable,” she said.

Hanno Brankamp, a lecturer at the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, argues that the new policy will lead to migrants looking for alternatives even when they are forcefully sent to Rwanda.

Mr Brankamp describes the mood of the UK population as ‘divided’.

“There is a large number of people, if not a slight majority that are outraged at this but of course we should not forget that there is also quite a large number of people who have anti-asylum sentiments and who either tolerate the policy or support it.

“A big factor is playing to the domestic audience, at this point we are not very clear if this policy will actually materialise. There are some interpretations of the policy that the government is trying to distract people from its internal turmoil and multiple corruption scandals and failings of the government,” he added.

According to the UK government, at the heart of this approach is fairness; access to the UK’s asylum system must be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. The demands on the current system, the cost to the taxpayer, and the flagrant abuses are increasing. The British public have rightly had enough.

“There is a need to protect the borders like with every other country; there is a need to protect citizens as well but there is a moral code that goes into the rule of law, that goes into the fabric of this country that people be treated equally and fairly especially if they are destitutes, refugees,” Mr Ogunshakin said.

“We do feel the impact of immigration on the systems here,” Mr Ogunshakin agrees, but “I will suggest that part of that problem has to do with the EU free trade movement that we have enjoyed for over 40 years, so we cannot boil it down to asylum seekers.”

He added that most of the foreign nationals in the UK are often middle class from other countries and as such should not be solely blamed for the burden on infrastructure.

According to the Home Office, the new plan for immigration will improve support for those directly fleeing oppression, persecution and tyranny through safe and legal routes, deter illegal entry, and make it easier to remove those with no right to be in the UK.

“I do not believe what the home secretary said because we know that within her government, senior civil servants are not happy with this policy ‘white on white’. They do not think it will work and they think it is very expensive,” Mr Ogunshakin said.

Although it is not clear who will be sent to Rwanda to get their asylum application processed, Mr Ogunshakin believes it is a law that suits the government “when it wants.”

“I suspect that if you were a high profile political refugee, there would be somewhere in these rules that would welcome you if you already have property in the UK,” he said.

For Messrs Ogunshakin and Brankamp, the new policy only reminds the public of the government’s apathy for migration which was more hostile with Theresa May as home secretary.

Mr Ogunshakin insists that the new policy cannot be said to be noble, but naive perhaps, disingenuous. “Naive because we have a long history of fraught immigration policies in this country which when you look at the effect of them, you get to conclude that they were deliberate, intent and the effect of them is to achieve the top line goal-to reduce migration from a particular part of the world”.

Mr Brankamp added the government had been anti-migration and such policies have been in the offing since 2014.

“The government know that this will be met with a lot of legal challenges and will be quite a bumpy ride for them considering that there is so much public outrage and resistance against it and that is partly what the government wants really because they are playing to not just domestic audience but also members of their party who are anti-immigration,” he added.

As part of the policy, the military will take operational command of responding to small boats in the Channel, in partnership with the Border Force.

“This will happen with immediate effect, and be backed up by £50 million in new funding. This change will deliver new boats, aerial surveillance and expert military personnel. In doing so it will bolster Border Force teams and their existing patrol vessels and provide a Wildcat helicopter,” the UK government said.

Meanwhile, the Rwandan Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Vincent Biruta speaking on the partnership said, “Rwanda is committed to international cooperation and partnership on migration and the opportunities that a robust protection system, comprehensive human capital investment programme can create, for migrants and for development of the host country. ”

According to Mr Biruta, there is a global responsibility to prioritise the safety and well-being of migrants, and Rwanda welcomes this Partnership with the United Kingdom to host asylum seekers and migrants, and offer them legal pathways to residence. This is about ensuring that people are protected, respected, and empowered to further their own ambitions and settle permanently in Rwanda if they choose.

According to the Human Rights Watch 2022 report, dissenting and critical voices have continued to be stifled by the government and those perceived as a threat to the government targeted alongside their family members. The space for political opposition, civil society, and media remained closed.

“Several high-profile critics, including opposition members and commentators using social media or YouTube to express themselves, went missing, were arrested or threatened. Arbitrary detention, ill-treatment, and torture in official and unofficial detention facilities was commonplace, and fair trial standards were routinely flouted in cases deemed sensitive,” the report said.

The Rwandan government and those operating on its behalf continued to exert pressure on Rwandan refugee and diaspora communities, as far afield as Australia and Canada. Refugees who are known critics of the government have been threatened and harassed.

In Africa, HRW documented and received credible reports of Rwandan refugees and asylum seekers being “forcibly disappeared” and returned to Rwanda, or killed.

While speaking to PREMIUM TIMES, Mr Brankamp raised questions about how the new arrivals to Rwanda will be integrated given the large refugee population in Rwanda.

Archbishop of Canterbury, UNHCR, Refugee Council slam new policy

During his Easter sermon, Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury slammed the new migration policy saying it was opposing God’s nature.

“Subcontracting out our responsibilities, even to a country that seeks to do well, like Rwanda, is the opposite of the nature of God who himself took responsibility for our failures,” Aljazeera quoted the cleric as saying.

Speaking at Canterbury Cathedral in southeast England, Mr Welby said that while “the details are for politics and politicians, the principle must stand the judgement of God — and it cannot”.

Mr Welby said sending asylum seekers overseas posed “serious ethical questions”.

The United Nations refugees agency also expressed strong opposition to the policy noting that it is contrary to the Refugee Convention of 1951.

“UNHCR remains firmly opposed to arrangements that seek to transfer refugees and asylum seekers to third countries in the absence of sufficient safeguards and standards. Such arrangements simply shift asylum responsibilities, evade international obligations, and are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention,” said UNHCR’s Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, Gillian Triggs.

As of March 2022, Rwanda hosted a total of 127,585 refugees and asylum seekers.

According to the UNHCR, the East African country has generously provided a safe haven to refugees fleeing conflict and persecution for decades, the majority live in camps with limited access to economic opportunities.

Enver Solomon, CEO UK Refugee Council said, “the UK Government is lurching from one inhumane policy to the next in relation to the lives of refugees, none of which address the reason why people take perilous journeys to find safety in the UK.”

Mr Solomon noted that the decision to send those seeking sanctuary in our country to Rwanda is cruel and nasty.

“Treating people like human cargo by using the force of the military to repel vulnerable people who have already endured extreme human suffering and expelling them to centres in Rwanda, a country with a questionable record on human rights, is dangerous, cruel and inhumane,” he added.