WHY Has the Court Ruled Against Rwanda Over the UK Asylum Deal?

In April 2022 the Conservative government of then‑Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda (MEDP), later renamed the UK‑Rwanda Asylum Partnership. Under the agreement, people who arrived in the UK irregularly such as crossing the English Channel in small boats or clandestine lorries could be transferred to Rwanda, where Rwandan authorities would decide their asylum claims. Those recognised as refugees would be granted asylum in Rwanda, not in the UK. The scheme was intended to deter irregular Channel crossings.

Official guidance indicated that asylum applicants could be removed to Rwanda if they had previously passed through a country where they could have claimed asylum, their journey to the UK was “dangerous” and they travelled on or after 1 January 2022. Rwanda offered to take roughly 1 000 people in the five‑year trial period. Children and Rwandan nationals were exempt.

Costs and criticism

Implementing the scheme proved expensive. The Home Office explained that payments to Rwanda would include £100 million in economic‑transformation funding split into two £50 million payments in 2025–26 and 2026–27— as well as per‑person payments for each asylum seeker relocated. Only four volunteers, and no asylum seekers, were ever relocated under the scheme. UNHCR argued that externalising the UK’s asylum obligations to Rwanda undermined global solidarity and was not compatible with international refugee law.

The plan faced multiple legal challenges. A planned flight carrying asylum seekers to Kigali in June 2022 was halted by a late European Court of Human Rights injunction. In November 2023 the UK Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda could not be considered a safe country for asylum seekers and declared the scheme unlawful. In response, the government negotiated a new treaty with Rwanda and passed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, but after winning the July 2024 general election, Labour scrapped the plan and declared it “dead and buried”.

Many African commentators criticised the notion of using Rwanda as a destination for migrants. Xtrafrica, an east‑African news site, argued that Rwandans rejected being turned into a “dumping ground” for Western migrants and that human beings should not be “cargo to be traded between powerful leaders”. The article emphasises that Rwanda is “not a prison island” and called for an end to such deportation schemes.

Rwanda’s arbitration claim

Launching the claim

According to sources Rwanda launched inter‑state arbitration proceedings against the United Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague in January 2026. Rwandan officials argued that Britain had failed to honour payments due under the scrapped asylum agreement and sought compensation, initially estimated at about £50–60 million. By then, London had already paid Kigali £240 million under the agreement and a further £50 million was due in April.

Rwanda’s justice minister, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, said the country had incurred “significant costs” in preparing to receive asylum seekers and accused the UK of walking away from its legal obligations. He noted that Kigali was not even formally notified of the cancellation and only learned about it in the media. Rwanda’s legal team argued that diplomatic exchanges in November 2024, which the UK later relied on, did not validly alter the financial arrangements.

Rwanda’s justice minister

Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, said the country had incurred “significant costs” in preparing to receive asylum seekers and accused the UK of walking away from its legal obligations.

UK’s defence

Lawyers representing the UK contended that the plan’s cancellation by the incoming Labour government was “entirely logical” and that “simple common sense” meant no further payments were due. They said Rwanda was not entitled to the compensation sought because diplomatic notes exchanged in November 2024 indicated Kigali agreed to forgo additional payments in April 2025 and April 2026. The UK argued it did not breach the agreement and had already spent over £700 million on the policy.

The tribunal’s ruling

On 1 June 2026 the Permanent Court of Arbitration released its ruling, which had been issued on 15 May. The tribunal rejected all of Rwanda’s financial claims. It found—by a majority—that Rwanda had agreed, via diplomatic notes exchanged in November 2024, to forgo further payments from the UK. The court therefore held that no compensation or apology was owed. Rwandan officials said they respected the ruling while noting that one judge dissented and that the issues were complex.

The ruling means Britain will not have to pay the estimated £60–100 million Rwanda sought. The decision also highlighted that only four people were ever sent to Rwanda under a voluntary removals programme.

Reactions and broader context

UK reactions

A UK government spokesperson welcomed the ruling and said the country had “robustly defended its position”. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper argued that the Conservative policy wasted time and £700 million of taxpayer money to send just four volunteers. Conservatives disagreed; Shadow home secretary Chris Philp criticised Labour’s decision to scrap the plan, claiming it led to record migrant crossings and that the UK should not be subject to international tribunals deciding sovereign policy according to reports.

Rwanda and African perspectives

Rwanda’s government said it would continue to work constructively with international partners. However, some African observers see the episode as part of wider geopolitical dynamics. Xtrafrica’s piece “Rwanda is not a dumping site for Western migrants” portrays deportation schemes as Western attempts to offload their migration issues onto African countries. The site’s coverage of Joseph Kabila’s sanctions and the M23 rebel crisis hints at broader tensions between Rwanda and its neighbours, which have affected Rwanda’s international relations and led the UK to pause some aid over Kigali’s alleged backing of M23 rebels.

Human‑rights and refugee groups

Human‑rights organisations argue that outsourcing asylum processing undermines international refugee protection. UNHCR stressed that moving asylum seekers to Rwanda would shift responsibilities and is incompatible with international refugee law. The Refugee Council and other UK charities say the scheme created chaos by pausing asylum decisions and leaving people stuck in limbo; they advocate building a fair system that makes quick, accurate decisions about who can stay and who must return.

Implications

For UK asylum policy

The tribunal’s ruling removes potential financial liabilities from the scrapped policy but leaves unresolved issues regarding channel crossings and border management. The government plans to redirect resources towards strengthening border controls and scaling up removals of people with no right to stay.

For international refugee protection

The case underscores the tension between national migration controls and global refugee protection obligations. Attempts to externalise asylum responsibilities, whether by the UK or other countries, draw criticism from rights groups and the UN. While Rwanda sought to monetise an agreement to host migrants, the human cost and reputational risks proved significant. The outcome may dissuade other nations from pursuing similar deals, but some leaders including Donald Trump, according to our analysis continue to explore deportation arrangements with Rwanda.

Regional dynamics in Central Africa

The arbitration battle occurred against a backdrop of strained relations between Rwanda and its neighbours. Rwanda’s alleged support for the M23 rebel group in the Democratic Republic of Congo prompted the UK to suspend some aid. Elsewhere, US sanctions against former Congolese president Joseph Kabila for supporting M23 have raised questions about accountability and regional stability. These developments illustrate how migration policies, rebel conflicts and geopolitical alliances interconnect across the Great Lakes region.

The UK’s victory in the arbitration case marks a definitive end to its controversial asylum partnership with Rwanda. Although the legal ruling spares British taxpayers a large payout, the affair has left political, ethical and financial scars. The plan’s collapse exposes the risks of outsourcing asylum responsibilities and highlights the need for comprehensive, humane migration policies. As the debate over migration and border control intensifies in Europe and beyond, Africa‑based perspectives such as those expressed by reports serve as a reminder that the people and regions targeted by these schemes have voices and agency in shaping their destinies.