UK Government’s ‘Safe’ Rwanda Claim Debunked: Asylum Data Exposes Reality

The UK government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has been mired in controversy since its announcement in April 2022. Claimed to deter illegal immigration and alleviate pressure on the UK’s asylum system, the policy is based on the assertion that Rwanda is a safe country. However, recent data starkly contradicts this claim, exposing the policy as not only immoral and legally dubious but also fiscally irresponsible.

Is Rwanda Really Safe?

The UK government claims that Rwanda is a safe destination for asylum seekers, backed by an Evidence Pack published alongside the policy. This document concludes that Rwanda is safe for asylum processing based on the treaty and various assurances from the Rwandan government.

However, significant flaws undermine these claims:

• Supreme Court Findings: While the Supreme Court did not conclusively determine the risk of Article 3 ill-treatment (inhuman or degrading treatment) for relocated individuals in Rwanda, it found a real risk of onward refoulement due to deficiencies in Rwanda’s asylum system. This means individuals could be sent to countries where they face serious harm, contradicting the claim of safety.
• Monitoring and Enforcement: Although the UK government asserts that individuals relocated to Rwanda will be supported and have access to healthcare and integration packages, the practical delivery of these promises remains questionable. The principles for treatment are confirmed in an internationally binding agreement, but effective monitoring and enforcement are critical, and there are doubts about their implementation.
• Human Rights Record: Rwanda has faced criticism from international human rights organisations for its record on political freedom, freedom of speech, and treatment of dissenters. These concerns cast doubt on Rwanda’s ability to provide a genuinely safe environment for asylum seekers.

The truth exposed

Given the UK government’s repeated claims of Rwanda’s safety, we submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to determine how many people from Rwanda have been granted asylum. The results starkly contradict the government’s stance, revealing the reality of Rwanda’s safety status. Specifically, from Q3 2023 to Q1 2024, 16 Rwandan nationals were granted asylum in the UK.

• Grant of Protection: Each case resulted in a “Grant of Protection” under the “Refugee Permission” outcome, showing that the host countries’ asylum authorities found these individuals’ claims credible and deemed them in need of international protection.
• Diverse Demographics: The individuals granted asylum span various ages and genders, including minors and dependants, highlighting widespread distress among Rwandans.

Legal and Political Missteps

The UK government’s plan was challenged in court, where it was ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers. In response, the Conservative government attempted to redefine “safe” to fit their agenda, disregarding crucial factors like human rights and political stability. Substantial payments to the Rwandan government, with little transparency, further complicate the issue.

Financial Burden on Taxpayers

The Tory government’s misleading claims are not only ethically and legally flawed but also waste taxpayer money:

• Double Costs: Taxpayers fund both the asylum system that grants protection to Rwandan nationals and the payments to Rwanda to accept asylum seekers. This dual expenditure is inefficient and unnecessary.
• Legal and Implementation Costs: Ongoing legal battles and the infrastructure required to implement this policy incur significant costs, straining public funds.

Admitting the truth that Rwanda is not a safe country would save taxpayers money by eliminating these unnecessary expenses. The government’s refusal to acknowledge reality results in wasting more money than if they accepted Rwanda’s actual safety status.

Urgent Need for Change

The UK government’s policy has failed on multiple fronts: it’s morally indefensible, legally questionable, and fiscally irresponsible. The data reveals a glaring contradiction: while the government claims Rwanda is safe, they continue to grant asylum to Rwandans based on the premise that it is not.

This policy reflects poor judgement and incompetence, underscoring the urgent need for new leadership. The Conservative government must be held accountable for its disastrous policies and replaced with a government that prioritises honesty, human rights, and fiscal responsibility.

Conclusion

This government’s policies are not just flawed—they are a blatant display of incompetence and hypocrisy. The Conservative government claims to protect asylum seekers, yet it concocts deals with a country that has proven unsafe, while simultaneously wasting millions of taxpayer pounds on a futile and harmful endeavour. Their actions demonstrate a callous disregard for human rights and fiscal responsibility, underscoring the need for immediate political change. This is not just a policy failure; it is a moral and financial scandal that demands accountability. The UK deserves leaders who are at least vaguely competent, if not genuinely committed to humane and effective governance.