Rwanda demands more than £100m from UK over failed migrant deportation deal

The east African nation has taken Britain to court claiming it breached the terms of its agreement and is owed the money.

The hearing at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in the Netherlands opened on Wednesday.

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 the UK was being sued by Rwanda.

Want LBC stories before everyone else? Set us as your Preferred Source on Google

Read more: Tube strike called off: Next week's driver walkout avoided after 'progress' in talks between union and management

Read more: Meningitis outbreak latest: Vaccine rollout for 5,000 students begins as suspected cases rise

By the time of the 2024 general 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 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.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer declared the plan “dead and buried” as one of his first moves in office.

Mr Ugirashebuja said the UK “did not do Rwanda a courtesy of informing it in advance” and instead leaders were “left to read about this development in the media”.

Lord Verdirame KC, one of the lawyers representing Rwanda, said the country was “deeply disappointed” at the news and “did not appreciate that tone”.

“Rwanda is not going to be drawn into an unnecessarily confrontational tone, but after all the time that was spent into this partnership, including by the various officials who worked on it, the United Kingdom’s complete failure to comprehend Rwanda’s perspective in this partnership is a matter of genuine regret.

”The UK “cannot look at this treaty that creates a partnership just through the prism of its own domestic politics, with Rwanda being little more than an instrument for delivering British policy objectives”, he said.

He accused the UK of an “inward-looking approach” and a “tone deaf response” to part of its obligations to resettle Rwandan refugees in return, under the deal.

Lord Verdirame also told the court that notes shared between Home Office officials about meetings held in October 2024 – discussing the future of the four migrants who had arrived in Rwanda and confirming they would stay there – were focused on avoiding “headlines” about them returning to the UK “because something had gone wrong”.

“So that’s why they had to make sure that this issue was resolved. The problem is the headlines, and in a lot of this, the politics around this agreement, headlines are a primary concern,” he said.

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 on Thursday.