A minister has confirmed that a new treaty may lead to British lawyers being sent to Rwanda in order to carry out Rishi Sunak’s proposal of relocating asylum seekers to the African country.
The current home secretary, James Cleverly, is reportedly close to completing an agreement with Rwanda in line with the prime minister’s aim of ensuring the plan is legally sound following the supreme court’s declaration that it was illegal.
Lucy Frazer, a member of the Cabinet, mentioned that the Home Office is thoroughly considering the possibility of deploying UK government lawyers to Rwanda in order to address concerns about their legal system.
During her appearance on BBC Breakfast, she addressed the issue of processing and mentioned that the Home Office is currently reviewing it closely.
“I am aware that the home secretary, James Cleverly, is currently collaborating with Rwanda to develop a new agreement. We plan to introduce the necessary laws in the near future.”
There is a growing belief among lawyers and charities that a plane carrying asylum seekers will not depart for Rwanda until after the next general election, projected to take place in 2024. The Labour party intends to abandon this policy if they are victorious.
On Monday, it was reported that Cleverly will be journeying to Kigali to finalize the new contract. There are also plans for domestic laws to be put in place, allowing the UK parliament to declare Rwanda a secure place for refugees who come to Britain.
The suggestion of sending British lawyers to Rwanda was criticized by Nick Emmerson, the president of the Law Society of England and Wales, an organization that represents solicitors.
He stated that having British lawyers stationed in Rwanda suggests a lack of trust in the handling of cases there, highlighting the challenges with the scheme.
The government must acknowledge that the plan is probably not fixable and instead focus on addressing the backlog of asylum cases and addressing the significant shortage of resources in the sector for providing necessary asylum and immigration guidance.
Toufique Hossain, a solicitor at Duncan Lewis, stated that it is challenging to understand how British lawyers can make the strong rulings of the supreme court disappear simply by being there.
The court acknowledged the UNHCR’s evidence that the flaws in Rwanda’s processes and institutions for handling asylum requests are significant and consistent.
Following the decision of the supreme court on November 15th, government officials stated that they have been developing backup plans and assuring a treaty with Rwanda would be finalized within days, along with urgent laws to be passed in parliament. However, neither of these actions have been completed as of yet.
There are reports indicating that Rwanda is seeking additional funding in addition to the £140 million already allocated to the program.
According to The Sunday Times, Kigali will receive an additional £15m payment in order to agree to new terms on their agreement with the UK to accept migrants who enter Britain through small boats.
Bypass the newsletter advertisement.
after newsletter promotion
According to a reliable source in the home secretary’s office, the Rwandan government has not requested additional funds in exchange for signing a treaty, and no monetary incentives have been proposed to secure the agreement.
The chair of the home affairs select committee, Dame Diana Johnson, expressed concern over the government’s lack of consideration for parliament’s ability to examine the important immigration policy. This came after a senior civil servant stated that any additional expenses beyond the initial £140m paid to Rwanda would not be revealed until the summer.
Government employees have not been able to disclose the specific amount of money that has been allocated for preparing for the agreement, expenses related to hiring staff, or expenses related to legal battles in various court cases.
Charities that support refugees have stated that they do not believe the legislation will be effective in preventing legal disputes. They argue that the ruling of the supreme court was thorough and critical of the asylum system in Rwanda, and that no law can deny an individual the right to bring a legal challenge.
A high-ranking official involved in developing strategies to avoid future legal disputes over the Rwanda policy informed the Times that proposed legislation was merely a tactic to gain political support. They also stated that the government cannot use legislation to bypass the supreme court’s ruling.
According to Dominic Cummings, who was an adviser to Boris Johnson at the time, the plan made in 2020 did not intend to actually send people to a third country.
During the X interview, Cummings stated that the purpose of Rwanda was to avoid confronting the actual issues at hand.
However, due to the craziness of the Tory-SW1 world, Boris Johnson’s attempt to distract them has been unexpectedly successful and has gained its own momentum. Even the new Prime Minister is now treating it as a legitimate plan.
Source: theguardian.com
