UK Supreme Court Ruling: No £100 Million Payment to Rwanda

The UK Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Rwanda asylum policy in November 2023 clarified the lawfulness of deporting asylum seekers. A key point of discussion surrounding this ruling has been a potential £100 million payment from the UK to Rwanda. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment did not order any such payment. The court’s focus was on whether Rwanda was a safe country for asylum seekers under human rights law, not on financial compensation between the two nations.

The Supreme Court’s Decision on Rwanda’s Safety

In November 2023, the UK Supreme Court ruled in the case of R (AAA and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The judges determined that Rwanda was not a safe third country for asylum seekers. This conclusion was based on the risk of “refoulement,” which means that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda could be returned to their home countries where they might face persecution or harm.

The court’s assessment was guided by domestic and European human rights protections. Specifically, it examined whether sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The court found that the risk of refoulement meant the policy was unlawful under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Clarifying the £100 Million Figure

The notion that the UK Supreme Court ordered a £100 million payment to Rwanda has been a point of confusion. The Supreme Court’s judgment in November 2023 was about the legality of the asylum policy itself. It addressed whether the UK could lawfully remove asylum seekers to Rwanda, not whether financial compensation was due.

The material available does not support the claim that the Supreme Court ordered Britain to pay Rwanda £100 million. This figure may stem from separate discussions, financial agreements, or potential future legal claims, but it is not a part of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the asylum policy’s safety. The court’s role was to interpret human rights law concerning the proposed deportations.

Subsequent Legislative and Treaty Actions

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the UK government took further steps. In 2024, Parliament enacted the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act. This legislation aimed to declare Rwanda safe for asylum purposes, overriding the court’s previous findings. Additionally, a treaty between the UK and Rwanda was ratified in April 2024, as part of the government’s efforts to address the legal challenges.

It is important to distinguish between the Supreme Court’s legal assessment in November 2023 and these subsequent legislative and treaty actions. The court ruled based on the legal framework and evidence presented at that time. Parliament’s later actions represent a political and legislative response designed to change the legal basis for treating Rwanda as a safe country. The chronology shows the court’s decision came first, followed by the government’s legislative and diplomatic responses.

The Distinction Between Legal Rulings and Financial Agreements

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Rwanda asylum case was a public law and human rights ruling. It focused on whether government actions complied with established legal rights. This is different from a commercial dispute or a case seeking damages or compensation. Courts that review the lawfulness of ministerial actions under the Human Rights Act do not automatically create financial obligations for one state to pay another.

Therefore, the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Rwanda asylum policy did not include an order for Britain to transfer £100 million to Kigali. Any financial understanding or agreement between the UK and Rwanda on this matter would exist on a separate legal or diplomatic track, distinct from the Supreme Court’s assessment of the asylum policy’s legality. The court’s ruling effectively blocked the removals by finding Rwanda unsafe under the legal tests applied at the time.