Concerns have surfaced regarding Rwanda’s commitment to its asylum seeker agreement with the UK. Critics highlight Rwanda’s previous actions, suggesting a pattern of transferring refugees to third countries despite initial agreements. This skepticism stems from a similar deal Rwanda had with Israel, where asylum seekers were reportedly relocated to Uganda against their will, raising doubts about Rwanda’s adherence to its promises.
Recent data reveals that out of the 5,700 individuals identified for relocation to Rwanda, only 2,143 remain in contact with the UK’s Home Office. This discrepancy has heightened concerns about the effectiveness of monitoring deported asylum seekers. Dan Sohege, director of the human rights group Stand for All, underscores that once asylum seekers are transferred to Rwanda, the UK’s capacity to oversee their treatment diminishes significantly.
Evidence from the UNHCR indicates that during a previous agreement with Israel, refugees were often moved to Uganda clandestinely, even when they were willing to stay in Rwanda. Reports suggest that upon arrival, many had their documents confiscated and were kept under guard before being smuggled out of Rwanda. Such practices have led to fears that the UK-Rwanda agreement might follow a similar trajectory.
The UK’s Supreme Court had previously raised concerns about Rwanda’s track record with asylum seekers, highlighting the risk of refoulement. Critics argue that despite assurances, the UK government lacks a robust mechanism to ensure the safety and proper treatment of asylum seekers once they are relocated to Rwanda. This has led to accusations that the UK is merely offloading its asylum responsibilities without adequate safeguards.
Furthermore, human rights advocates warn of potential forced military conscription for asylum seekers in Rwanda. Internal memos revealed in court have flagged this risk, adding another layer of complexity to the already contentious agreement. Despite these concerns, the UK government maintains its stance that Rwanda is a safe destination, citing Rwanda’s history of hosting refugees. However, critics argue that the evidence of past failures casts a long shadow over the current deal.
