By Anietie anii-bassey
Rwanda has formally accused the United Kingdom of failing to honor financial commitments tied to a controversial migration agreement, telling international arbitrators that London still owes £100 million following the abrupt cancellation of the policy by Prime Minister Keir Starmer in 2024.
The dispute is being heard at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, where Rwandan officials argued that the British government walked away from its obligations under a deal that had already prompted significant investment and preparation by Kigali.
The agreement, originally signed in 2022 under former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, was designed to deter irregular migration to the United Kingdom by relocating certain asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Under the plan, migrants arriving in Britain through unauthorized routes — including small boats crossing the English Channel — would be transferred to the East African nation, where their asylum claims would be processed. Those granted protection would remain in Rwanda rather than returning to the U.K.
As part of the arrangement, Britain agreed to provide financial support to Rwanda to help cover the costs of implementing the system. According to Rwandan officials, those commitments formed the basis for extensive preparations on the ground.
Speaking before the arbitration panel, Rwanda’s justice minister and attorney general, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, said his government had taken substantial steps to fulfill its side of the agreement. These included establishing an asylum appeals chamber, building administrative and legal frameworks, and preparing reception facilities for incoming migrants.
Ugirashebuja told the court that Rwanda had incurred considerable expenses in anticipation of the program’s rollout, only for the arrangement to be terminated without prior notice. He said the decision by the new British government came as a surprise, with officials in Kigali learning of the policy’s cancellation through media reports rather than direct communication.
“The United Kingdom did not meet even the basic expectation of informing its partner in advance,” he told the panel, describing the move as a breach of trust as well as a legal obligation.
The Labour government under Starmer moved quickly to dismantle the policy upon taking office, with the prime minister declaring the plan “dead and buried” on his first full day in power. The scheme had been a centerpiece of the previous Conservative government’s immigration strategy but faced sustained legal challenges and widespread criticism from human rights organizations.
British officials are contesting Rwanda’s claim, arguing that a subsequent understanding reached between the two countries in November 2024 effectively settled the matter. According to London’s position, Rwanda agreed to forgo any additional payments, nullifying the current claim.
Rwandan representatives reject that interpretation, insisting that no binding agreement was reached to waive the outstanding funds. Instead, they argue that the U.K. is attempting to withdraw from a legally enforceable commitment after benefiting from Rwanda’s cooperation and preparation.
Legal experts say the outcome of the case could hinge on whether evidence supports the existence of such a settlement. The arbitration process is expected to take several months, if not longer, before a final ruling is issued.
The dispute also revives debate within the United Kingdom over the cost and effectiveness of the now-defunct policy. Then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper sharply criticized the initiative, describing it as an extraordinary misuse of public funds. She estimated that the plan cost taxpayers approximately £700 million, factoring in payments to Rwanda, chartered flights that were ultimately canceled, and administrative expenses associated with staffing and implementation.
The policy was ultimately struck down by the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that Rwanda could not be considered a safe third country for asylum seekers. The judgment dealt a decisive blow to the scheme, paving the way for its cancellation.
In addition to its financial claim, Rwanda has also alleged that the United Kingdom failed to uphold another component of the agreement, which involved resettling vulnerable refugees from Rwanda to Britain. That aspect of the dispute is also under review as part of the arbitration proceedings.
The case represents a rare and high-profile legal confrontation between the two countries, with broader implications for international migration agreements and the enforceability of bilateral deals. As hearings continue in The Hague, both sides are seeking to defend their interpretations of a policy that has remained politically and legally contentious since its inception.
Original article
Comments