Britain ‘does not owe’ Rwanda millions of pounds over failed migrant deportation deal, court hears
Lawyers have denied that the UK owes Rwanda millions of pounds over the failed migrant deportation deal as the two countries clashed at an international court.
Listen to this article
The east African nation is suing Britain for more than £100 million, claiming it breached the terms of its agreement and is owed the money.
When the hearing at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in the Netherlands continued on Thursday, lawyers argued it was “entirely logical” the plan would be scrapped when Labour came into power after the 2024 general election and “simple common sense” that no further payments would be due.
Ben Juratowitch KC, one of the lawyers representing Britain, told the court: “The key issue for you to decide is whether the parties agreed, with legally-binding effect, to amend the June 2024 finance agreement, such that the United Kingdom was no longer obliged to make annual payments into what the parties had called the economic transformation and integration fund (ETIF).”
He said in a November 2024 note verbale – a formal, third-person diplomatic communication – that the UK “proposed that no further ETIF payments be made and that the previous agreement be amended accordingly”.
Read more: Rwanda demands more than £100m from UK over failed migrant deportation deal
Read more: Rwanda agrees to take migrants from the US despite concerns over international law breaches
“Rwanda duly replied by note verbale the next day that the proposed arrangements were acceptable to it.
“That was all that was needed to conclude a legally-binding agreement on the proposals contained in the United Kingdom’s note and the obligations in the June 2024 finance agreement to make ETIF were thus terminated.
“That is in summary the United Kingdom’s case.”
After the change in government, “Rwanda explicitly recognised in a note to the United Kingdom that either party may terminate the asylum partnership agreement”, he said.
He added: “From July 8 2024, it was clear that there were going to be no further relocations from the United Kingdom to Rwanda, and so it was entirely logical that obligations to make further payments would be terminated.“
Both states had a unilateral right to terminate the asylum partnership agreement, and thus the June 2024 finance agreement, and Rwanda had specifically recognised that unilateral right.
“It is simple common sense that either by way of unilateral termination or some other agreement, those further payments were not going to be falling due.”According to legal papers, Rwanda has asked the court to find the UK in breach of the agreement and demands it pay all outstanding sums, as well as compensation.
Earlier this year, Downing Street defended the decision to scrap the previous Tory administration’s doomed plan when it emerged Rwanda was taking the UK to court.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer declared the plan “dead and buried” as one of his first moves in office.
Prior to the election, the Conservative government had already spent some £700 million on its flagship immigration policy under which migrants who arrived in the UK by boat from France would be sent to Kigali in a bid to deter Channel crossings.
But just four volunteers ultimately arrived in Rwanda before the plan was scrapped.
Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, Rwanda’s minister of justice and attorney general, told the court on Wednesday that the country incurred “significant costs” preparing for the partnership but the UK “then sought to walk away from its legal obligations”.
In a document setting out Rwanda’s claim, Mr Ugirashebuja asked the court to rule that the UK had breached the agreement and should pay about £100 million that it was due to receive in two instalments in 2024 and 2025, plus £6 million in compensation and interest.
Instead of compensation, he said Rwanda would accept a formal apology from the UK for failing to honour parts of the deal.
According to a defence statement, Home Office legal adviser Tamsin Stubbing denied the UK had breached parts of the deal and said “Rwanda is not entitled to any of the forms of relief it seeks” as she asked the court to dismiss the claims.
The three-day hearing continues.