The Rwandan government has lost its bid to claim more than £100 million from the UK over the collapsed asylum deal, according to BBC News the international court has ruled that Britain does not have to pay Rwandan any compensation.
In a decision announced on Monday, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in favour of the UK, stating that Rwanda is not entitled to any of the financial relief it sought. The ruling brings to an end a high-profile legal dispute stemming from the controversial migration partnership signed under the previous Conservative government.
How the Dispute Started
The deal was first announced in 2022 by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson and later championed by Rishi Sunak as a key deterrent to illegal Channel crossings. Under the agreement, asylum seekers arriving illegally in the UK (primarily via small boats from safe countries like France) would be sent to Rwanda. Their claims would be processed there, and if successful, they could be granted refugee status and settle in the East African nation.
The UK committed to significant payments to Rwanda for hosting the scheme, including setup costs and per-person fees. However, the plan faced immediate and sustained legal challenges. The first scheduled flight in 2022 was grounded at the last minute following intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), triggering multiple court battles in the UK.
Despite these hurdles, the scheme never resulted in large-scale deportations. A later voluntary removals programme offered rejected asylum seekers up to £3,000 to relocate to Rwanda, but only four people took up the offer.
Following Labour’s victory in the 2024 general election, new Prime Minister Keir Starmer swiftly cancelled the deal, declaring it “dead and buried.” Rwanda subsequently sued the UK, arguing that Britain had breached the terms of the agreement by walking away without honouring financial commitments. Rwandan officials claimed they had incurred “significant costs” preparing for the partnership and were not given advance notice of the cancellation, learning about it through the media.
The Court Ruling
During a three-day hearing in the Netherlands, UK lawyers argued that scrapping the plan upon a change of government was “entirely logical” and “simple common sense,” meaning no further payments were due. They maintained that the UK had not breached the deal.
The tribunal sided with the UK, ruling that Rwanda is not entitled to the compensation sought.
JUSTICE & CRIME
Rwanda Loses £100M Legal Battle Over UK Asylum Deal
Jun 1, 2026
Jun 1, 2026
4 min read
Published
Updated:
The Rwandan government has lost its bid to claim more than £100 million from the UK over the collapsed asylum deal, according to BBC News the international court has ruled that Britain does not have to pay Rwandan any compensation.
In a decision announced on Monday, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in favour of the UK, stating that Rwanda is not entitled to any of the financial relief it sought. The ruling brings to an end a high-profile legal dispute stemming from the controversial migration partnership signed under the previous Conservative government.
How the Dispute Started
The deal was first announced in 2022 by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson and later championed by Rishi Sunak as a key deterrent to illegal Channel crossings. Under the agreement, asylum seekers arriving illegally in the UK (primarily via small boats from safe countries like France) would be sent to Rwanda. Their claims would be processed there, and if successful, they could be granted refugee status and settle in the East African nation.
The UK committed to significant payments to Rwanda for hosting the scheme, including setup costs and per-person fees. However, the plan faced immediate and sustained legal challenges. The first scheduled flight in 2022 was grounded at the last minute following intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), triggering multiple court battles in the UK.
ADVERTISEMENT
Despite these hurdles, the scheme never resulted in large-scale deportations. A later voluntary removals programme offered rejected asylum seekers up to £3,000 to relocate to Rwanda, but only four people took up the offer.
Following Labour’s victory in the 2024 general election, new Prime Minister Keir Starmer swiftly cancelled the deal, declaring it “dead and buried.” Rwanda subsequently sued the UK, arguing that Britain had breached the terms of the agreement by walking away without honouring financial commitments. Rwandan officials claimed they had incurred “significant costs” preparing for the partnership and were not given advance notice of the cancellation, learning about it through the media.
The Court Ruling
During a three-day hearing in the Netherlands, UK lawyers argued that scrapping the plan upon a change of government was “entirely logical” and “simple common sense,” meaning no further payments were due. They maintained that the UK had not breached the deal.
ADVERTISEMENT
The tribunal sided with the UK, ruling that Rwanda is not entitled to the compensation sought.
A Rwandan government spokesperson said the country respects the tribunal’s ruling and considers the matter concluded. However, they highlighted a dissenting opinion by Professor Mohamed Abdel Wahab, noting that the issues were complex and open to different legal interpretations, particularly regarding whether November 2024 exchanges validly altered the financial arrangements.
Rwanda’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, had earlier told the court that the UK failed to uphold its legal obligations after Rwanda had invested in the partnership.
Reactions
A UK government spokesperson welcomed the ruling, saying the country had “robustly” defended its position. The government reiterated its focus on broader border reforms, including faster removals of those with no right to remain in Britain.
ADVERTISEMENT
TRENDING NOW
POPULAR TODAY
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp welcomed the court’s decision but criticised Labour for cancelling the original Rwanda plan, claiming it has contributed to record Channel crossings and asylum claims.
Imran Hussain of the Refugee Council described the original scheme as causing “chaos,” pausing decisions and leaving people in limbo. He called for investment in a fair and efficient asylum system instead.
The ruling marks the formal end of one of the most contentious migration policies in recent UK history. While the financial dispute is now resolved, debates over how best to manage irregular migration and Channel crossings continue on both sides of the political divide.
ADVERTISEMENT
RELATED ARTICLE
