Skip to main content

Officials repeatedly warned Priti against Rwanda deal, court hears

Britain’s high commissioner to Rwanda cited human rights concerns and feared that refugees would be forced into the army

GOVERNMENT officials repeatedly advised Priti Patel against striking an asylum deal with Rwanda due to “significant” human rights concerns, the High Court heard today. 

New court documents, sent to lawyers acting for asylum-seekers who have launched a legal action against the policy, reveal that Britain’s high commissioner to Rwanda had urged the Home Secretary not to pursue Rwanda as an option back in February 2021.  

Listing a number of concerns, the commissioner highlighted shocking accusations that Rwanda has been “recruiting refugees to conduct armed operations in neighbouring countries,” and that asylum-seekers would be at a “risk of refoulement.” 

Rwanda was initially excluded from a short list of potential countries on “human rights grounds,” according to the documents which were presented to the High Court, and reveal a series of “extraordinary” revelations including that the Rwandan government might have influenced a British assessment determining it to be a “safe third country.” 

The case challenging the legality of the policy is also being led by charities Care4Calais, Detention Action and Asylum Aid, as well as civil servants’ union PCS. 

Concerns were also raised by Foreign Office officials. In a note to the then foreign secretary Dominic Raab in March 2021, officials warned that if Rwanda were to be selected “we would need to be prepared to constrain UK positions on Rwanda’s human rights record.”

A few months later, concerns were raised again by the department, warning that a deal with Rwanda would undermine Britain’s ability to put pressure on the Rwandan authorities over “high-profile human rights cases.” 

Court documents also indicated that the Home Office had deliberately withheld the plans from the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR on the basis that it would give them “more time to organise their campaign against these measures when they are announced.”

This again flies in the face of earlier claims by the Home Office that UNHCR was “closely involved in the scheme,” to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda. 

On the day before the deal was signed between the two countries, an internal memo said there was “limited evidence” to suggest the deal would have a deterrence effect.

The papers also contained shocking revelations that Rwandan authorities may have influenced a report determining Rwanda to be a “safe third country.”

A Home Office memo dated May 2022, revealed that a final draft of the assessment was shared with the Rwandan government. 

Despite the Home Office claiming the assessment was “objective, impartial and independent,” the memo appears to show that the Rwandan authorities were given the opportunity to amend sections concerning its human rights record. 

Commenting on the documents, PCS head of bargaining Paul O’Connor urged the Home Office to abandon the policy.

“The details mentioned in open court today indicate that the Home Secretary is well aware of human rights violations in Rwanda,” he said.

“They also indicate that the government is prepared to dampen down its criticisms of those violations in order to preserve this policy.” 

The full hearing is due to be heard in September. 

OWNED BY OUR READERS

We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing Society.

 

 

Become a supporter

Fighting fund

You've Raised:£ 13,288
We need:£ 4,712
3 Days remaining
Donate today