In April, the conservative government of Boris Johnson had shocked by announcing a partnership with Kigali to send migrants to it only on the grounds that they would have arrived “illegally” in the United Kingdom, without visa.
by Lucie Mouillaud and Cécile Ducourieux (London, correspondent)
Disappointment on the NGO side, relief on the side of the British government: Monday, December 19, the High Court of Justice for England and Wales concluded that London’s decision to expel in Rwanda asking ‘Asylum in the United Kingdom, was “legal”. The fact that their asylum requests are examined by the Rwandan authorities and not by the British authorities, is also deemed legal.
The British government having made arrangements with Kigali so that asylum requests were “correctly” examined in Rwanda, the judges considered that the United Kingdom was not violating the Convention on the refugees of 1951 or its commitments in The framework of Human Rights Act of 1998 – a law incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights of 1953 in British law.
In April, the conservative government of Boris Johnson had shocked the associations of assistance to migrants and the opposition parties by announcing a partnership with Kigali to send asylum seekers to Rwanda only on the grounds that they would have arrived “illegally” in the United Kingdom, without visa, crossing the Channel by pneumatic boat.
This policy was defended by the Minister of the Interior of the time, Priti Patel, for its supposed deterrent effect, and conceived as a key element of the national device to stop the perilous crossings of the English Channel in “Small Boats” . But it was denounced by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of the Anglican Church – which considers it “immoral” – and even, according to indiscretions in the media, By Prince Charles (now king in September) who would have judged him “appalling”.
for Rwanda, an economic opportunity
“I am delighted with the decision of the High Court, (…) We have always defended the legal nature of our agreement with Rwanda,” said Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Monday. More pragmatic than his predecessors Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, Mr. Sunak, who himself comes from a family of immigrants -his parents are of Indian origin -, however, has taken up without mood the defense of their “Rwandan policy”.
In Kigali, the assistant spokesman for the government, Alain Mukuralinda, speaks of “satisfactory decision. We see people dying while drowning in the Mediterranean, or victims of human trafficking. shows an evolution in the way of solving this problem “. According to this official, local authorities have had several months to prepare, “so that, if tomorrow, an airplane arrives, Rwanda is ready to welcome the first migrants”. The same hotels, the same terms of the agreement are still in place. “We have signed an agreement, we are ready to apply it, we are ready to improve it, we are now waiting for it to be implemented on the other side.”
You have 42.44% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.