London: Britain's Supreme Court has delivered a significant blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's government by ruling the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as unlawful.
The scheme aimed to deter migrants crossing the English Channel from Europe by sending tens of thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The Supreme Court unanimously deemed the scheme inappropriate as it couldn't guarantee Rwanda as a safe third country for asylum seekers, reported Reuters.
This ruling strikes at the core of Sunak's immigration strategy, particularly ahead of an anticipated election next year. The policy, central to Sunak's immigration approach, sought to address concerns among some voters regarding the increasing numbers of asylum seekers arriving in small boats.
The decision stirred strong reactions among right-wing lawmakers within Sunak's party, suggesting extreme measures such as withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the court clarified that its decision was based on various laws and treaties, not solely on the Convention.
The political significance of this ruling heightened after Sunak dismissed Interior Minister Suella Braverman, who had a role in immigration matters, triggering criticism from Braverman accusing Sunak of breaking promises on immigration.
Sunak, affirming the government's commitment to ending illegal migration, emphasised the detrimental effects of illegal migration on lives and taxpayers' expenses, reiterating the determination to halt it.
Despite trailing by around 20 points in opinion polls, Sunak had promised to "stop the boats," which was among the key pledges of his tenure. The surge in unauthorised arrivals along the southern English coast, surpassing 27,000 this year and 45,755 in 2022, underscored the urgency of this issue.
Critics, including opposition lawmakers, sections of the Conservative Party, church leaders, and the UN refugee agency, had denounced the Rwanda policy, arguing its flaws, ethical concerns, and practical ineffectiveness.
President Robert Reed highlighted the risk of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, expressing concerns about the real risk of refoulement, sending individuals back to their origin countries where they might face mistreatment.
The court's decision, deemed a win for humanity by refugee charity Care4Calais, declared the Rwanda policy as both immoral and illegal.
While the court ruled the scheme unlawful, it didn't completely rule out its future possibilities, suggesting potential changes that could eliminate the risk of refoulement.
Responding to the ruling, a Rwandan government spokesperson contested the conclusion that Rwanda was not considered a safe third country for asylum seekers.