UK wins Rwanda conflict as court rejects £100m compensation claim

The UK will not have to pay Rwanda more than £100 million after an international court rejected Kigali’s claim for compensation following the collapse of the controversial asylum partnership abandoned by Keir Starmer’s government.

The ruling, handed down by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, marks a significant victory for Britain and ends a conflict that emerged after Labor canceled the Rwandan project days after taking office in July 2024.

Rwanda had argued that the UK had breached the terms of the agreement after abandoning the partnership, saying it had incurred substantial costs in preparing to receive asylum seekers. However, the court ruled in favor of Britain and rejected Rwanda’s claims for compensation.

The deal, first unveiled by Boris Johnson in 2022 and later championed by Rishi Sunak, aimed to deter illegal Channel crossings by relocating asylum seekers who arrived in the UK via irregular routes to Rwanda, where their claims would be processed. Those who were granted refugee status would have remained in Rwanda rather than settling in Britain.

During a three-day hearing in the Netherlands, lawyers representing the U.K. argued it was entirely reasonable for a new government to roll back a flagship policy of its predecessor and maintained no further payments were due once the program was canceled. They also rejected claims that Britain violated the deal.

Rwanda’s Justice Minister and Attorney General Emmanuel Ugirashebuja told the court the country had incurred significant costs to prepare for the partnership and accused the UK of failing to honor its commitments. He also claimed that Rwanda was not informed in advance of the abandonment of the project and instead learned of the decision through the media.

The Rwanda plan became one of the defining immigration policies of the last conservative government. Supporters argued it would create a powerful deterrent against illegal immigration by making it clear that those who arrive in Britain illegally would not be allowed to stay in the UK.

However, the policy was mired in legal challenges from human rights lawyers before it could be fully implemented. The first deportation flight was halted in June 2022 following intervention by the European Court of Human Rights, triggering years of litigation and political controversy.

Labor made scrapping the plan a central election commitment and, shortly after entering Downing Street, Starmer declared the policy was “dead and buried”. Ministers argued the scheme was costly, ineffective and incapable of producing the scale of deportations needed to deter illegal immigration.

Critics, however, argue that the policy was abandoned before there was a chance to demonstrate whether it could work. They point out that repeated legal challenges meant the system was never implemented on a large scale, making it impossible to judge its effectiveness as a deterrent.

Leading advocates of the policy include former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick, former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and former Home Secretary Priti Patel, all of whom argued that ending the Rwanda project weakened Britain’s ability to deter illegal immigration and disrupt the business model of smuggling gangs. Senior Conservatives, including Kemi Badenoch and Chris Philp, have also continued to defend the principle of deportations to third countries, arguing that credible deterrence is needed to reduce illegal Channel crossings and restore control of the asylum system.

Supporters of this policy also cite international examples. Australia’s offshore processing system, which transferred migrants arriving by boat to facilities on Nauru and Papua New Guinea, was followed by a dramatic reduction in unauthorized maritime arrivals and was often cited by advocates of tighter border controls. Similar approaches are increasingly being explored elsewhere, with several European countries examining external processing arrangements and Italy considering processing some asylum applications outside its territory.

Supporters of Rwanda’s policy say Britain spent years overcoming legal hurdles and establishing the framework for a system based on deterrence, but Labor dismantled it before it could be properly tested. They argue that the decision was motivated by political opposition to the policy rather than evidence as to its ultimate success.

The government rejects these claims and insists its approach focuses on strengthening border security, increasing expulsions of rejected asylum seekers and targeting criminal smuggling networks.

Although the court ruling settles the financial dispute between London and Kigali, it is unlikely to end the wider political debate over whether Labor abandoned a potentially effective deterrent measure, just as other countries were moving towards similar policies.