The Supreme Court have declined the government’s effort to employ the Rwanda policy, to send refugees to this country with poor human rights policies. However, the government, despite the rejection, continues to persevere to make the plan succeed.
Lawyers have said that UK ministers’ currently plans to get their Rwanda policy off the ground. However, despite their efforts, the probability of setting the plan on track is unlikely and overcoming the legal obstacles, set by the supreme court on Wednesday, will be tricky.
Five judges unanimously rejected the government’s plans to deport people that are seeking asylum in the UK to the east African country Rwanda. Sunak said that he is trying to ensure flights will fly to send refugees to Rwanda by legislating that the country is safe.
A human rights barrister, named Adam Wagner, said that the supreme court justices “started by saying non-refoulment is a really fundamental concept, and it’s contained in lots of different sources of law. So, the government can legislate to say two plus two is five, but it doesn’t make two plus two [equal] five. They can legislate to say actually Rwanda is safe; it doesn’t make Rwanda safe as a matter of international and domestic law.”
He had also told that there was “a failure to abide by assurances (including an assurance of non-refoulment)” between Israel and Rwanda.
Another human rights barrister at Cloisters chambers, named Schona Jolly KC, said: “The government is not engaging with that detail in its own magical thinking. The facts on the ground matter, and those facts formed the basis of our own supreme court’s judgment. Legislating by decree won’t magically change those facts, and it won’t change the international legal provisions or principles applicable.”
Her views were echoed by Alexander Horne, a former parliamentary lawyer, who said: that changing “our domestic law is not going to cure your breach of international laws and the supreme court was very clear that you have the refugee convention, the European convention on human rights, the United Nations convention against torture – there’s a whole gamut of these things”.
However, Rishi Sunak is contemplating on blocking a key human rights law to help force through plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda amid growing pressure from right wing Conservative MPs.
A ruling by the UK’s highest court on Wednesday portrayed that Sunak’s flagship policy is unlawful because of the possibility of “refoulment,” which is prohibited by international laws, including the European convention on human rights (ECHR), the UN refugee convention and the UN convention against torture, which have been given effect in domestic law by the Human Rights Act.
This means that the hard-right New Conservatives grouping had demanded Sunak’s new legislation “must disapply the Human Rights Act.”
Share This Post On
0 comments
Leave a comment
You need to login to leave a comment. Log-in
