Faith Nyasuguta
The government has openly acknowledged persistent concerns regarding Rwanda’s human rights record, countering Rishi Sunak’s claim that it is a secure country.
Documents released on Thursday reveal that while Rwanda is relatively peaceful with respect for the rule of law, there are ongoing human rights issues concerning political opposition, dissent, and free speech.
The revelation is part of a government “policy statement” sent by Home Secretary James Cleverly to MPs and lords, aiming to garner support for the Rwanda bill.
These documents underpin the government’s assertion that Rwanda is safe, a crucial aspect of Sunak’s legislation designed to salvage his flagship deportation deal, which was deemed unlawful in November.
The policy statement also concedes that Rwanda might take months to pass a new asylum law necessary for implementing the new treaty with the UK, a cornerstone in the prime minister’s bid to convince judges of the scheme’s legality.
In 2017, Paul Kagame was elected to a third seven-year term as president with a reported 99% of the vote. However, both the 2017 and 2018 elections faced criticism from international monitors, citing numerous flaws, including irregularities in the vote tabulation process.
The 2022 US government human rights report highlighted impediments to political parties’ formation, restrictions on political party activities, and delays or denials in registering NGOs focusing on human rights, media freedom, or political advocacy.
Facing a Commons showdown, the prime minister anticipates challenges to his Rwanda plan. Former Justice Secretary Sir Robert Buckland has proposed amendments, one of which seeks to remove clauses declaring Rwanda a safe country. Conservative moderates may refrain from rebellion unless Sunak makes concessions to rightwing MPs seeking to block international treaties.
More than 30 rightwing MPs, including former Prime Minister Liz Truss, aim to make the bill more stringent. Labour plans to table amendments demanding the publication of the full impact assessment on the bill’s costs, including per-person removal expenses and details of the financial memorandum between the UK and Rwanda.
Meanwhile, ministers are criticized for an insufficient plan to curb Channel crossings, failing to provide asylum seekers with more legal ways to travel to the UK.
The government, obligated by the Illegal Migration Act, did not propose new safe routes in a report criticized as “woefully inadequate” by the Refugee Council.
RELATED:
