Britain: Sunak Navigating Tough Moment As Top Court Mulls Legality Of Rwanda Scheme

At 10 am on Wednesday, five justices of Britain’s Supreme Court will issue a verdict on the government’s highly controversial Rwanda scheme that seeks to deport “tens of thousands” of “irregular” asylum seekers to 4,000 miles to east Africa.

The plan remains the central plank of the ruling Conservative party’s immigration policies under the administrations of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. The ruling comes as Sunak faces a revolt from “red wall” MPs after the sacking of Suella Braverman as home secretary.

A decision in favour of the government could result in asylum seekers being sent thousands of miles away to Rwanda. But if the government loses, dozens of Tory MPs will demand the government place leaving the ECHR at the heart of the party’s manifesto in the next election.

The European Convention on Human Rights came into effect in 1953. In 1951, the UK became the first nation to ratify the convention. The Human Rights Act of 1998 enshrined the convention in UK law, allowing the rights guaranteed by the convention to be enforced in UK courts.

Keep Reading

• ‘Growing Interest’ Among European Leaders In UK’s Rwanda-Style Deals
• Germany’s ‘Historic’ Migration Policy To Restrict Social Benefits For Asylum Seekers
• Key Changes In Rishi Sunak’s Cabinet – And How Controversial They Could Be

Suella Braverman Claims The Government Has No Plan B

While neither side is supposed to know Wednesday’s ruling in advance, it has been reported the government is braced to lose. But why did it take so long to decide the legality? So far, the domestic and European courts have held up the removal of anyone to Rwanda under the policy.

In June 2022, a European Court of Human Rights ruling stopped a plane waiting to take off with detained asylum seekers at the 11th hour. In December, the high court ruled the plan is lawful. But in June 2023, the court of appeal ruled against the government on a single issue of safety.

The British government appealed against that ruling to the Supreme Court, which is yet to announce the verdict. The top court’s decision will be focused on the question of safety, instead of overturning the high court and court of appeal judgements.

In her departure letter on Tuesday, the Indian-origin Braverman claimed the government had no plan B, warning if the Supreme Court doesn’t rule in favour of the government, “you will have wasted a year”. She also said if the government wins, the ruling will still be open to legal woes.