The British government has confirmed that as part of a new agreement, lawyers from Britain may be sent to Rwanda. This is in line with Rishi Sunak’s proposal to relocate asylum seekers to the African country.
The home secretary, James Cleverly, is reportedly near completion of a treaty with Rwanda in order to fulfill the prime minister’s objective of ensuring the legality of the plan, following the supreme court’s ruling that it was not lawful.
Lucy Frazer, a minister in the Cabinet, stated that the Home Office is giving close consideration to the proposal of dispatching UK government lawyers to Rwanda in order to address concerns regarding the legal system.
During an interview with BBC Breakfast, she mentioned that there is a concern regarding processing and that the Home Office is currently examining it closely.
I am aware that James Cleverly, the home secretary, is currently collaborating with Rwanda to create a new agreement. We will be introducing a bill at the appropriate time.
Lawyers and charities have a growing belief that a flight carrying asylum seekers will not depart for Rwanda before the upcoming general election in 2024. If the Labour party is victorious, they plan to discard this policy.
On Monday evening, it was reported that Cleverly would be making a trip to Kigali in order to finalize the new agreement. The UK parliament also intends to pass domestic laws to confirm that Rwanda is a secure option for asylum seekers arriving in Britain.
The concept of sending British lawyers to Rwanda was criticized by Nick Emmerson, the president of the Law Society of England and Wales, which advocates for solicitors.
According to him, the proposal to have British lawyers stationed in Rwanda suggests a lack of trust in the handling of cases there, further highlighting the challenges of the scheme.
The government must acknowledge that the program is probably irreparable and instead focus on addressing the backlog of asylum cases and addressing the insufficient resources in the sector to provide necessary advice on asylum and immigration matters.
According to Toufique Hossain of Duncan Lewis solicitors, it is unlikely that British lawyers can use their presence to make the significant findings of the supreme court disappear.
“In particular, the court acknowledged the UNHCR’s evidence, which highlights the significant and consistent flaws in Rwanda’s processes and systems for handling asylum requests.”
Following the ruling by the supreme court on November 15th, government officials stated that they had been actively preparing contingency plans and assured that a treaty with Rwanda would be finalized within a few days. They also promised to introduce emergency legislation in parliament, but as of now, neither has been implemented.
It has been reported that Rwanda is requesting additional funds in addition to the £140 million already allocated to the project.
According to The Sunday Times, Kigali is set to receive an additional £15m in order to agree to new terms in their agreement with the UK to take in migrants who enter Britain via small boats.
Ignore the advertisement for the newsletter.
after newsletter promotion
According to a source close to the home secretary, the Rwandan government has not requested additional funds in exchange for signing a treaty, nor has any money been offered to ensure the completion of the treaty.
Diana Johnson, the head of the home affairs panel, expressed that the government showed complete disregard for the parliamentary authority to examine the important immigration policy when a high-ranking official stated that any additional expenses beyond the £140 million already given to Rwanda would not be revealed until summer.
Government employees have been unable to provide information on the amount of money that has been used for preparations related to the agreement, expenses for staff, or expenses for legal battles in multiple court cases.
Charities supporting refugees have stated that they do not believe the legislation will be effective in preventing legal disputes. They argue that the supreme court’s ruling was thorough and critical of the Rwandan government’s process for granting asylum, and that no law can strip an individual of their right to pursue a legal challenge.
A high-ranking government employee involved in the development of strategies to avoid future legal challenges to the Rwanda policy stated to the Times that proposed legislation was merely a ploy for political gain. They further stated, “The government cannot use legislation to evade the ruling of the supreme court.”
In 2020, Dominic Cummings, who was an advisor to Boris Johnson at the time, stated that the initial plan to relocate individuals to a different country was never intended to be carried out.
Cummings stated on X that the purpose of Rwanda was to avoid confronting the actual issues at hand.
Due to the insanity of the Tory-SW1 world, Boris Johnson’s ploy to distract them has been more successful than anticipated and has developed a momentum of its own. This has even led to the new Prime Minister treating it as a legitimate strategy.
Source: theguardian.com
