Rwanda Policy Versus The Supreme Court

The Impacts

While the judgement made it clear that The Supreme Court was not stepping in to the political debate surrounding the policy, it is clear that this judgement does ‘undermine one of the Prime Minister’s key pledges: to “stop the boats”. This decision could lead to increased pressure on the government to relax policies directed at asylum seekers, as well as increasing criticism of the government on any policies drawn up in the future.

Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, stated “The plan goes against who we are as a country that stands up for those less fortunate than us and for the values of compassion, fairness and humanity. The government should be focusing on creating a functioning asylum system that allows people who seek safety in the UK a fair hearing on our soil and provides safe routes, so they don’t have to take dangerous journeys” (The Guardian, 2023). Statements such as these indicate the real concerns that many have towards The Rwanda Policy.

The Government's Reaction And Likely Steps

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his government remain undeterred by the judgement and any other criticisms of the policy, stating that he will continue to uphold his pledge to ‘stop the boats’. The Prime Minister has explained that he is now willing to use an emergency bill to confirm that Rwanda is a safe third country, despite the clear disapproval of the Court of Appeal and The Supreme Court. Although lacking in detail of what this would entail, Sunak has also proposed a revised treaty with Rwanda.

The Institute for Government has estimated what these provisions could contain, such as making the agreement more legally binding between the two governments. This could perhaps be to circumvent the problem of the risk of refoulement that was noted by the courts. They have suggested however, that this may not be enough and that there would need to be adequate sanctions in order to ensure the safety of asylum seekers who are sent to Rwanda and that the agreement will remain upheld. The Supreme Court commented that these new provisions “may not be straightforward, as they require an appreciation that the current approach is inadequate, a change of attitudes, and effective training and monitoring” (Institute For Government, 2023). This could indicate that there are further aggressive measures for asylum seekers on the horizon, and that the government is particularly set on implementing this legislation, despite its clear flaws.

It is also likely that because the policy of removing asylum seekers to a third country to have their claims processed was not itself criticised by The Supreme Court, the government will continue with such a proposal and look to sign treaties with countries that have a better record than Rwanda on the refoulment point.