Hours after the UK’s Supreme Court docket dominated that the federal government’s plan to ship asylum seekers to the African nation was illegal, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak promised to introduce emergency laws that confirms that Rwanda is a protected nation.
The emergency laws “will ensure that people cannot further delay flights by bringing systemic challenges in our domestic courts, and stop our policy being repeatedly blocked,” Sunak advised reporters on Wednesday.
The announcement got here as human rights teams celebrated the Supreme Court docket choice, stating that asylum seekers could be at “risk of ill-treatment” if despatched again to their residence nations, as soon as in Rwanda.
A joint civil society assertion signed by 140 organisations, together with distinguished marketing campaign teams such because the Runnymede Belief and Liberty, had described the plan as “cruel and immoral”.
“We urge the Government to immediately abandon such plans with Rwanda or with any other country, and instead protect the rights of people who have come to our country in search of sanctuary,” it mentioned.
Maddie Harris, founding father of the UK-based People for Rights Community – which additionally signed the assertion, mentioned the Supreme Court docket had made it “abundantly clear that Rwanda causes a serious risk to individuals in terms of refoulement to countries where they may face persecution or death”.
“An emergency law does not eliminate that risk. What the [UK] government is saying is: ‘We don’t care if we send people back to their death,’” she advised Al Jazeera.
Harris mentioned it was unclear how an emergency regulation might take priority over a Supreme Court docket ruling.
“This is an unprecedented announcement and [we will have to see] if this is political posturing or if it allows them the possibility to remove people,” she mentioned.
The court docket choice on Wednesday dealt a serious blow to Sunak, whose promise to crack down on undocumented migration throughout the English Channel stands largely unfulfilled as he prepares for a basic election that have to be held in some unspecified time in the future earlier than the tip of January 2025.
“This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats,” he advised reporters.
‘Clear breach of international law’
Catherine Woollard, director of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), advised Al Jazeera that the scenario for refugees within the UK “remains very precarious”.
“It is to be hoped that the government will respect the decision of the Supreme Court, otherwise this will become a rule of law crisis, not just a political issue,” she mentioned.
Woollard added that the controversy wanted “to be addressed as a matter of urgency” as asylum seekers have been caught in limbo, usually in detention.
A minimum of 75 p.c of the individuals looking for safety within the UK are refugees and are formally recognised as in want of safety at first occasion. Much more obtain a safety standing after a evaluation of the primary choice as they hail from war-torn nations together with Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
“The national legislation that codified this deal essentially removed the right to apply for asylum in Europe from people arriving across the Channel. This is a clear breach of international law,” Woollard mentioned.
Akiko Hart, interim director of the civil rights group Liberty, mentioned makes an attempt to relocate asylum seekers to a 3rd nation are a part of a broader push to dismantle vital checks and balances that forestall the federal government from infringing human rights.
“They are trying to change the rules so that only they can win. We all have human rights by virtue of being human, no matter how hard the government tries to divide us,” Hart mentioned in a press release. “We must protect everyone’s human rights – especially those seeking safety and protection from harm.”
Amnesty Worldwide UK mentioned that the federal government has been pursuing an “underlying policy of refusing to process people’s asylum claims”.
“This policy has made complete chaos of the UK’s asylum system and this shameful deal has simply exacerbated the mess,” Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty Worldwide UK’s chief govt, mentioned in a press release.
“The only responsible, effective and decent response to this judgement should be to get down to the serious task of fairly and efficiently determining people’s claims.”
Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick had hinted earlier this 12 months that the federal government could be ready to depart the European Conference on Human Rights (ECHR) – a invoice of rights that protects the proper to life, safety, freedom of thought and expression that dates again to 1953 – to pave the way in which for deportations to Rwanda.
Deshmukh mentioned the concept the UK ought to withdraw from the ECHR “to pursue this failed policy” was “nonsensical and should be immediately binned”.
“The government should make policies which fit with the law, not fit the law around their policies,” he mentioned.
Una Boyd, an immigration solicitor on the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ), advised Al Jazeera that the Rwanda plan was a part of a “broader pattern of the UK government undermining and attacking the ECHR”.
For the Belfast-based organisation, the matter is of specific significance because the ECHR rights underpin the dedication to the Good Friday Settlement, a power-sharing association between the British and Irish governments and a lot of the political events in Northern Eire signed in 1998.
“In Northern Ireland, any attack on the ECHR undermines and threatens our peace agreements,” Boyd mentioned. “CAJ is calling for the UK government to move towards a fair and human rights complaint immigration regime, which protects the rights of everyone in our communities.”