Skip to content

[wpdreams_ajaxsearchlite]

February 21, 2024
< class="premium-post-ticker__post-title"> Rescue Effort Saves Trapped Miners at Redwing Mine in Zimbabwe
Uk Supreme Court Rejects Contentious Rwanda Migrant Policy, Dealing Blow To Prime Minister Sunak
Copyright: ABC News

Copyright claim/Content removal? Learn more

UK Supreme Court Rejects Contentious Rwanda Migrant Policy, Dealing Blow to Prime Minister Sunak

The UK Supreme Court rejected the government’s controversial plan to send migrants to Rwanda. The court upheld a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal, declaring the policy unlawful and incompatible with the country’s international obligations.

The five-judge panel unanimously agreed with the lower court’s assessment that sending migrants to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment. The judges concurred with concerns that Rwanda could forcibly return asylum seekers and refugees to their countries of origin, where they might face persecution.

The rejected plan, signed as a deal with Rwanda in April of last year, aimed to establish interim centre’s in Rwanda for undocumented migrants. The initiative sought to address the issue of “illegal” immigration via small boats crossing the English Channel, which the ruling Conservative party considered a pressing concern ahead of the next general election.

The Supreme Court’s decision effectively nullifies the agreement with Rwanda and leaves Prime Minister Sunak’s immigration agenda in disarray. The ruling is also expected to deepen divisions within the Conservative Party between right-wing lawmakers advocating for more assertive measures and moderates seeking a balanced approach.

While acknowledging that the outcome was not desired, Sunak assured that the government had been working on a new treaty with Rwanda, taking into account the court’s judgment. He expressed readiness to revise domestic laws and reconsider international relationships if obstacles persist.

Critics of the Rwanda plan have denounced it as cruel, costly, and difficult to implement. The Rwandan government expressed disagreement with the ruling, asserting that it is a safe third country for migrants.

The UK government contends that the policy is vital to deter migrants from crossing the English Channel from France using unsafe vessels. Although the number of migrants making the journey has decreased this year compared to previous years, it still falls short of Sunak’s commitment to “stop the boats.”

The government argues that reducing both regular and irregular immigration is necessary to alleviate pressure on government-funded services, including healthcare and housing for asylum seekers. The current backlog of asylum cases in the UK stands at 122,585, down 12 percent from the record high in February. Meanwhile, net migration, the difference between people leaving and arriving in the country, reached a record 606,000 last year.

Given the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court’s ruling, the government may explore alternative agreements with other countries to address the issue of “illegal” arrivals. Newly-appointed Interior Minister James Cleverly suggested that other European nations were inclined to follow the UK’s approach.

The decision is likely to reignite calls from right-wing politicians, such as former Interior Minister Suella Braverman, for the UK to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). However, Sunak has thus far refrained from endorsing such a drastic move. Braverman criticized Sunak’s immigration policies, accusing him of betrayal and lacking the necessary resolve.

Deputy Chairman of the Tory party, Lee Anderson, called for defying the laws and immediately deporting migrants upon arrival. He characterized the court ruling as a dark day for the British people and urged the government to proceed with sending migrants to Rwanda.

The main opposition party, Labour, capitalized on the ruling, criticizing Sunak’s perceived lack of a serious plan to address dangerous boat crossings. Labour’s senior MP Yvette Cooper described the plan as unworkable and excessively costly, highlighting the government’s failure to formulate a robust and practical policy.

Migrant advocates welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, viewing it as a victory for the rights of individuals seeking safety and protection. The Refugee Council expressed satisfaction with the ruling, emphasizing the importance of upholding the rights of men, women, and children fleeing persecution.

 

Source: ABC News

Did you like what you read?

Share on Social

Add me to your mailing list


    [mailpoetsignup* mailpoetsignup-693 list:3 default:on "I consent to privacy policy"]

    No comment yet, add your voice below!


    Add a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    More News

    Flights To Belfast City Airport Cancelled As Heavy Fog Disrupts Uk Airports

    Flights to Belfast City Airport Cancelled as Heavy Fog Disrupts UK Airports

    In a weather-related incident on Sunday night, Aer Lingus flights
    Rescue Effort Saves Trapped Miners At Redwing Mine In Zimbabwe

    Rescue Effort Saves Trapped Miners at Redwing Mine in Zimbabwe

    In a remarkable display of bravery and perseverance, rescuers successfully
    Nigeria Signs Mou With Saudi Arabia For Smooth Conduct Of 2024 Hajj

    Nigeria Signs MoU with Saudi Arabia for Smooth Conduct of 2024 Hajj

    In a significant development, Nigeria has signed a Memorandum of

    £10, £20 or more.

    Help to keep Jambo! Radio up and running

    Connect with Jambo! Radio on Social

    Jambo! Radio supports public opinions

    Have a news column to share?

    Artistes Shine on Jambo! Radio

    Pexels Antoni Shkraba Production 8412278 Removebg Preview2

    Discover new music, or promote your own songs.

    Look Good, Feel Good with Jambo! Radio Merch

    Support the growth of our platform by purchasing our merch.