\n<\/p>\n
The Rwandan government has launched legal action against the UK to seek payments it claims it is owed under a scrapped migrant deal between the two countries.<\/p>\n
Rwanda has filed a case with the Netherlands-based Permanent Court of Arbitration, arguing the UK has failed to honour commitments made in a deal to send some asylum seekers to the African nation.<\/p>\n
Under the deal, which was signed by the previous Conservative government, the UK agreed to make payments to Rwanda to host asylum seekers and support its economy.<\/p>\n
But after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer axed the deal in 2024, the Home Office said \u00a3220m in “scheduled future payments will not have to be paid” to Rwanda.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The BBC has asked the Home Office for comment.<\/p>\n
The prime minister’s spokesman said the government would “robustly defend our position to protect British taxpayers”.<\/p>\n
“The Rwanda scheme was a complete disaster,” the spokesman told reporters. “It wasted \u00a3700m of taxpayer cash to return just four volunteers.”<\/p>\n
The Rwandan government has not responded to the BBC’s requests for comment. But the country’s ministry of foreign affairs pointed us towards an article about the arbitration proceedings in the New Times, a Rwandan newspaper.<\/p>\n
The article says the arbitration “concerns the performance of specific commitments under the treaty”.<\/p>\n
The previous Conservative government spent some \u00a3700m on the Rwanda policy, which was intended to deter migrants from crossing the English Channel in small boats.<\/p>\n
Only four volunteers arrived in Rwanda when the deal was in force and Sir Keir said the plan was “dead and buried”, shortly after Labour won the 2024 general election.<\/p>\n
The deal included a break clause, which said “each party may terminate this agreement by giving notice to the other party in writing”.<\/p>\n
The \u00a3700m included \u00a3290m of payments to Rwanda.<\/p>\n
In December 2024, the Home Office said a further \u00a3100m of payments would have been due under the treaty, \u00a350m each of the 2025-26 and 2026-27 financial years.<\/p>\n
In addition, the Home Office agreed to pay \u00a3120m upon the transfer of 300 people to Rwanda.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The New Times article quotes a government adviser as saying Rwanda had “engaged in diplomatic exchanges before initiating arbitration”.<\/p>\n
Michael Butera, chief technical adviser to Rwanda’s minister of justice, told the newspaper: “Through arbitration, Rwanda seeks a legal determination of the parties’ respective rights and obligations under the treaty, in accordance with international law.”<\/p>\n
In the treaty signed by Rwanda and the UK, both countries agreed any dispute that could not be settled among themselves would be referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).<\/p>\n
The PCA, which is headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, is a forum for resolving international disputes between states.<\/p>\n
It is a process that is similar to arbitration that companies regularly agree to as an alternative to potentially damaging and lengthy court battles.<\/p>\n
The PCA has the power to issue binding, final rulings if disputes cannot be settled by the countries involved.<\/p>\n
Rwanda began the arbitration proceedings under the asylum partnership agreement in November, according to the PCA’s website, which lists the case’s status as pending.<\/p>\n
The PCA has not yet indicated how and when the complaint from Rwanda will be handled.<\/p>\n
The arbitration body typically sets a timetable with the parties specifying when they need to present their arguments – and the cases can take years to resolve.<\/p>\n
Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the legal action was “yet another catastrophic consequence of Labour’s decision to scrap the Rwanda scheme before it even started”.<\/p>\n
“This legal action means the British taxpayer is now facing a huge bill for Labour’s weakness and incompetence,” Philp said.<\/p>\n
He said Labour was “too weak to see this crucial policy through, and it’s the British taxpayer who is left to pay the price”.<\/p>\n
The UK government previously said it was looking at what money could be recouped after scrapping the scheme.<\/p>\n
But the Rwandan government has said it is under “no obligation” to refund any money.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n