By Nnenna Ibeh

The plan by the United Kingdom's Government to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has been a subject of controversy. It has raised important questions regarding Africa's place in the court's decision. The UK government's declaration to appeal the ruling in the Supreme Court has also not been received with open arms, especially among human rights activists.

While the policy has been contentious since its inception, given the colonial history of the UK and concerns about the human rights record of the Paul Kagame regime in Rwanda, it is essential to acknowledge that every country has the right to make sovereign decisions to safeguard its interests and the safety of its people. In this case, the UK is acting based on security guarantees, while Rwanda may have economic and strategic motivations.

It is worth noting that immigration policies and laws have become a highly divisive and political issue, particularly in Western countries where politicians often cater to specific demographics with strong anti-immigration sentiments. Other countries have adopted similar measures, such as the European Union's deals with Turkey and the United States of America's arrangements with Mexico and Honduras, to manage migration crises at their borders. Nevertheless, this particular UK's plan is unique because many targeted migrants have already entered British soil.

One of the major concerns from an African and human rights perspective is that the policy appears to be discriminatory, primarily affecting African migrants. There are fears that some of these migrants, including those escaping socio-economic persecution and conflict zones, may be sent back to their oppressors.

Fortunately, the UK Court of Appeal recognized these concerns and deemed the Government's plan unlawful. The court overturned a previous ruling that considered Rwanda a safe third country for sending refugees, stating that it would violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lawmakers and Campaigners Not Having It

While the ruling does not address the political merits of the Rwanda policy, UK campaigners and even British lawmakers have criticised it as unethical and ineffective. In contrast, refugee rights organisations have welcomed the court's decision.

For instance, Eddie Hughes, a member of the UK Parliament did not hesitate to make his disappointment on the appeal court's ruling known in a post he made on his Facebook page.

Hughes says, "I'm incredibly disappointed in this morning's decision to overturn the Rwanda plan. This is even more shocking since the UNHCR have {sic} agreed that Rwanda is a safe third country."

He adds that it is clear that controlling the UK borders and stopping the small boats is a priority for the Government and the British public. 

Worried about the opinions of activists and lawyers, Hughes notes that the British people should remain a priority in cases like this.

He adds, "Other countries are able to freely control their borders so I wonder why the Court of Appeal is against our country controlling its own borders? I'm glad that the Government will be taking this to the Supreme Court and I hope the final decision sides with the British Public."

However, contrary to the sentiments and concerns raised by many Africans and human rights activists, the Rwandan Government disagreed with the ruling. It highlighted its track record of providing care for refugees. Rwandan officials emphasised that the country is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention and does not return people to dangerous situations. They defended Rwanda's safety record and its collaboration with the UN refugee agency in assisting migrants in Libya.

Effect on Rwanda and Africa

It is crucial to recognize that the impact of the deportation plan on Africa as a whole is subjective and varies depending on individual perspectives. Some argue that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda could strain the country's resources and potentially expose refugees to harm if adequate protections are not in place. Others may also view it as an opportunity for Rwanda to demonstrate its ability to handle refugee populations and contribute to addressing the global refugee crisis.

After all, Rwanda has said that it has an "excellent record of taking care of refugees." The country's spokesperson,  Yvonne Makolo told the BBC's Newsday programme, that Rwanda has 140,000 refugees and has been working with the UN refugee agency to evacuate endangered migrants in Libya since 2019.

Makolo says, "We know what it is to flee and seek safety. Many of us have lived outside the country, we've been forced to leave... and come back. So we empathise with those in this situation," she said. Well, this is also a time to put words into action.

Ultimately, the court's ruling raises concerns about the legality and compliance with human rights standards of the proposed deportation plan. Most importantly, all parties must be assured that such a scheme must adhere to international legal obligations and prioritise the safety and well-being of every individual seeking asylum.