We use cookies to collect and analyse information on site performance and usage to improve and customise your experience, where applicable. View our Cookies Policy. Click Accept and continue to use our website or Manage to review and update your preferences.

Questions remain on Rwanda deal – solicitors
Pic: Shutterstock

06 Dec 2023 / britain Print

Questions remain on Rwanda deal – solicitors

The Law Society of England and Wales has questioned how a new treaty signed between Britain and Rwanda overcomes a Supreme Court ruling on the issue.

Britain’s highest court last month found that the British Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful.

It upheld the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that there were “substantial grounds” for believing that deportees would face a “real risk” of ill-treatment, contrary to their human rights.

‘Landmark treaty’

Yesterday (5 December), Home Secretary James Cleverly (pictured) signed a joint treaty with his counterpart, foreign minister Dr Vincent Biruta, “strengthening the UK and Rwanda’s Migration and Economic Development Partnership and directly addressing the concerns of the Supreme Court”, the Home Office said.

“The landmark treaty is binding in international law, and ensures that people relocated to Rwanda under the partnership are not at risk of being returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened – an act known as refoulement,” it said.

According to the Law Society Gazette of England and Wales, however, the solicitors’ organisation said that it remained unclear how the new treaty would overcome the Supreme Court ruling.

Refoulement risk

President Nick Emmerson said: “While parliament has the right to respond to a court judgment by passing legislation to change a point of domestic law, the Supreme Court’s finding in this case was on a point of fact, based on a core and well-established principle of international law.

“That fact is that Rwanda is not considered a safe country, given the high risk of refoulement of asylum seekers. Neither a treaty nor domestic legislation can overnight provide adequate means of safeguarding the rights of people removed to Rwanda.

“We will be carefully considering the terms of the treaty and legislation when they are available. For now, the UK Government must at a minimum make sure that ample opportunity is given to parliament to properly scrutinise both.”

Legal advice

The treaty contains a section on legal assistance.

It says that relocated individuals “shall be permitted to seek legal advice or other counsel, at all stages of the asylum-application process from a legal professional member of the Rwanda Bar Association, qualified to advise and represent them in matters of asylum or humanitarian protection”.

It continues: “This shall be provided to the relocated individual free of charge. A person providing a relocated individual with legal assistance or legal advice shall have unfettered access to the relocated individual, including in their accommodation.”

According to the treaty, Rwanda must take “all reasonable steps to ensure that there is sufficient capacity of appropriately trained legal advisers available to provide free legal assistance”.

Relocated individuals wishing to appeal a decision must also be provided with free legal assistance and representation from a member of the Rwanda Bar Association qualified to advise and represent in asylum or humanitarian-protection matters.

Gazette Desk
Gazette.ie is the daily legal news site of the Law Society of Ireland