Rwanda Initiates Legal Action Against the United Kingdom Over Abandoned Migrant Agreement
Kigali files arbitration claim seeking payments it says are owed after London scrapped the controversial asylum relocation deal
Rwanda has initiated legal proceedings against the United Kingdom by filing a case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, seeking payments it contends are owed under a now-scrapped migrant agreement that would have seen Rwanda host some asylum seekers from Britain.
The legal action, announced by the Rwandan government, follows the termination of the deal by the UK’s Labour government shortly after it came to power, a move Kigali says breached the spirit of partnership and its financial commitments under the treaty.
Signed under the previous UK Conservative administration, the agreement entered into force in April two thousand twenty-four and entailed Britain making phased payments to Rwanda in return for Rwanda accepting certain asylum seekers who had arrived irregularly in the UK. Only four people ever voluntarily relocated to Rwanda under the scheme before legal and political challenges stalled its implementation.
In July two thousand twenty-four, Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared the deal “dead and buried,” prompting Kigali to assert that London’s abrupt cancellation occurred without proper notice or negotiated termination.
Rwanda’s arbitration claim centres on alleged breaches of financial and treaty obligations, with Kigali seeking approximately fifty million pounds in damages, a figure linked to payments the UK did not make after abandoning the treaty.
The Rwandan government says that its willingness to negotiate terms for the deal’s formal termination was not realised and that under the treaty’s provisions the outstanding payments remain due and payable.
The UK government, by contrast, has maintained its refusal to make further payments following the abandonment of the agreement.
The dispute unfolds against a backdrop of broader migration policy debates in Britain, where successive governments have wrestled with rising small boat crossings and asylum pressures.
The failed Rwanda arrangement became emblematic of wider challenges in balancing deterrence and legal obligations, with the UK Supreme Court previously ruling that earlier iterations of the policy were unlawful.
Rwanda’s legal action is now poised to test international treaty obligations and obligations under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as the arbitration process proceeds, highlighting the enduring diplomatic complexity between the two partners over migration strategy and financial responsibilities.
The legal action, announced by the Rwandan government, follows the termination of the deal by the UK’s Labour government shortly after it came to power, a move Kigali says breached the spirit of partnership and its financial commitments under the treaty.
Signed under the previous UK Conservative administration, the agreement entered into force in April two thousand twenty-four and entailed Britain making phased payments to Rwanda in return for Rwanda accepting certain asylum seekers who had arrived irregularly in the UK. Only four people ever voluntarily relocated to Rwanda under the scheme before legal and political challenges stalled its implementation.
In July two thousand twenty-four, Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared the deal “dead and buried,” prompting Kigali to assert that London’s abrupt cancellation occurred without proper notice or negotiated termination.
Rwanda’s arbitration claim centres on alleged breaches of financial and treaty obligations, with Kigali seeking approximately fifty million pounds in damages, a figure linked to payments the UK did not make after abandoning the treaty.
The Rwandan government says that its willingness to negotiate terms for the deal’s formal termination was not realised and that under the treaty’s provisions the outstanding payments remain due and payable.
The UK government, by contrast, has maintained its refusal to make further payments following the abandonment of the agreement.
The dispute unfolds against a backdrop of broader migration policy debates in Britain, where successive governments have wrestled with rising small boat crossings and asylum pressures.
The failed Rwanda arrangement became emblematic of wider challenges in balancing deterrence and legal obligations, with the UK Supreme Court previously ruling that earlier iterations of the policy were unlawful.
Rwanda’s legal action is now poised to test international treaty obligations and obligations under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as the arbitration process proceeds, highlighting the enduring diplomatic complexity between the two partners over migration strategy and financial responsibilities.
