The UK’s Botched Deportation Plan to Rwanda The Ruling That Could Change How Refugees Seek Asylum

Despite the UK Appeal Court ruling stopping the planned deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda, the future looks uncertain for refugees, especially those of African descent, post-Brexit.

On 29 June 2023, the United Kingdom’s Appeal Court put a stop to the UK government’s plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda saying it was against the law. The court claimed that they are worried about the state of human rights in Rwanda and felt that people sent there may experience danger reminiscent of what they are escaping from.

Despite this setback, the UK government is not giving up. It plans to argue against the court’s decision, claiming that the deportation scheme is an important means of stopping people from misusing the asylum process. In the past ten years, there has been an increase in the number of asylum seekers and migrants into the UK from less than 18,000 in 2010 to over 70,000 in 2022. The government had planned to send asylum seekers to other countries while their applications were reviewed but this recent ruling has complicated matters.

Last year, the UK agreed to an initial deal with Rwanda worth 140 million pounds ($177 million) with plans to relocate tens of thousands of asylum seekers arriving in Britain to the East African nation. The migrants were to be housed temporarily in facilities, generally hostels or hotels, in Kigali while their asylum claims were looked into.

Human rights groups and international bodies have been very pleased with the court’s decision. Organizations like Amnesty International and the UN Refugee Agency have said before that they were worried about the government’s plan. Amnesty international in response to the ruling stated that ‘this totally misguided bid to expel people seeking asylum thousands of miles away to Rwanda—a country with its own asylum and human rights challenges—was always an expensive and deeply cruel injustice.’ Both organizations and more believe the court’s decision highlights the need to respect international law and protect people fleeing dangerous situations.

The Rwandan government has not said much about the court’s decision beyond affirming the safety of Rwanda. They had agreed to the UK’s plan before, hoping the deal might lead to more aid and a better image internationally. This court decision could now put those benefits in doubt.

It’s hard to say exactly what this will mean for African immigrants and refugees in the UK, but it could have a big impact. This decision will likely stop the UK from sending asylum seekers to other countries in the future. It means the government will need to think very carefully about how to treat people seeking asylum, with a focus on human rights. This could change how the UK deals with immigration and asylum claims in the future.


The blueprint for the deportation plan, part of the 2022 New Plan for Immigration, was aimed at making a sweeping change to how the UK processes asylum applications. Drawing inspiration from Australia’s offshore processing model, the plan envisaged sending asylum seekers to third countries while their applications were being assessed. This was against the backdrop of an uptick in anti-immigration sentiment borne out of ‘Brexit’.

This bold plan, however, triggered a wave of backlash, sparking intense criticism from human rights advocates and legal challenges. Critics argue that the plan misinterprets the 1951 Refugee Convention, contradicts the non-refoulement principle, and undermines the asylum process. The latest ruling by the court is the culmination of these challenges, throwing a spanner in the works of the deportation strategy.

The court’s ruling was largely based on concerns about the treatment of deportees in Rwanda and the possible violation of their rights. The judges underlined the lack of fair trials in Rwanda and concerns about potential human rights abuses, concluding that the deportation plan might breach asylum seekers’ right to non-refoulement—the cornerstone principle of international law that prevents nations from returning asylum seekers to places where they would face persecution.

This landmark ruling has added a new chapter in the UK’s ongoing struggle to reform its immigration system, reinforcing the importance of human rights in shaping these policies. The stage is now set for a period of legal and political tumult as the government wrestles with the implications of this judgment.


Rwanda’s journey since the devastating 1994 genocide, when about 800,000 people, mostly the Tutsi minority, were killed, has been one of resilience and recovery. The country has made significant strides in socio-economic development, with increased stability, poverty reduction, and improved infrastructure, positioning itself as a model of post-conflict reconstruction.

Amidst these commendable strides, the state of human rights in Rwanda remains a thorny issue. Rwanda’s human rights track record played a pivotal role in this ruling. Despite making strides in recovery and development post-genocide, Rwanda has been repeatedly criticized for its clampdown on political dissent, freedom of expression, and civil liberties. Reports of arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and lack of fair trials have painted a bleak picture of Rwanda’s human rights landscape. The court took these concerns into consideration, determining that Rwanda might not be a safe destination for asylum seekers. As the country grapples with its dichotomous reputation—on one hand being hailed as a beacon of post-conflict recovery, and on the other, criticized for human rights suppression—it continues to navigate a complex and multifaceted journey towards lasting peace and development.


African refugees in the UK find themselves in a mixed bag of circumstances. On the one hand, the country provides a haven from conflict, persecution, and economic strife that drive people from their homes. On the other hand, these refugees often face daunting challenges such as language barriers, racial discrimination, and bureaucratic hurdles in their asylum process.

The recent UK Appeal Court ruling against the Rwanda deportation plan provides immediate relief to African asylum seekers who were facing potential deportation. This relief is not just logistical but also psychological, easing the constant fear of being sent to a third country while their asylum claims are processed.

Beyond the immediate respite, the ruling has far-reaching implications for African asylum seekers and refugees. It signals a willingness on the part of the UK courts to uphold international law and protect the rights of asylum seekers, which could act as a deterrent against future attempts to outsource the asylum process.

Furthermore, this decision could foster a more humane discourse around the issue of asylum and migration in the UK. The ruling underscores the need to balance immigration control with respect for human rights, which might encourage a more nuanced and empathetic approach to the complex realities faced by African asylum seekers and refugees.

Overall, the future of asylum seekers in the UK, particularly those of African descent, is starting to look different following the Appeal Court ruling. While African asylum seekers still face challenges related to integration, language barriers and racial discrimination, the court’s decision offers some respite and potentially an improved legal climate for their asylum processes.

This verdict may mean a reassessment of current and future immigration and asylum policies, necessitating a shift towards a more human-rights-centred approach. Therefore, the treatment and handling of asylum seekers, specifically those from Africa, could see significant transformation.

Given the UK’s significant role on the world stage, the court’s decision to reject a plan to deport asylum seekers to a third party country might prompt other nations to rethink their stance and strategies regarding refugees. It puts the spotlight on the principles of non-refoulement and the right to fair asylum procedures and potentially acts as a deterrent to any states considering similar ‘offshoring’ plans for asylum seekers. Yet the UK government has yet to depart from this policy. ‘While I respect the court I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions,’ Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said in a statement, noting that the government would seek to overturn the decision in the UK Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, the ruling underscores the importance of human rights in managing asylum issues, emphasizing the need to treat all individuals with dignity and respect, irrespective of their origin. The global community would do well to heed the resonating echoes of this decision, as countries continue to grapple with the complexities of migration, displacement, and asylum in a turbulent world

The views, thoughts, and opinions published in The Republic belong solely to the author and are not necessarily the views of The Republic or its editors. We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editors by writing to [email protected].