Asylum-seekers and refugee groups have started a challenge in court against the British government’s plan to send hundreds of migrants on a one-way trip to Rwanda.
Attorney to the group, Raza Husain, argued at the Court of Appeal in London that the policy which describes as “high-profile and controversial” was unlawful, adding that Rwanda was an authoritarian one-party state that imprisons, tortures and murders opponents.
A year ago, Britain and Rwanda signed a deal which would see migrants who arrive in the U.K. in small boats, flown to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed and cause granted asylum would stay in Rwanda rather than return to Britain.
At the start of the four-day appeal hearing, Husain said the High Court judges had failed to scrutinize British government assurances that people sent to Rwanda would not suffer ill-treatment.
David Pannick, representing the government, said in written submissions that there were valid reasons why the U.K. government is confident the Rwandan authorities will comply with the assurances.
Britain’s government says the plan will dismantle operations of people-smuggling gangs and prevent migrants from taking risky journeys across the English Channel.
However, Human rights groups argue it’s inhumane and illegal to send people more than 6,400 kilometers to a country they don’t want to live in.
At the moment, no one has been sent to Rwanda under the deal. In December, Britain’s High Court ruled the Rwanda policy was legal, but a group of asylum-seekers from countries including Iran, Iraq and Syria was granted permission to appeal.
More than 45,000 people arrived in Britain by boat in 2022, compared with 8,500 in 2020.
