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 scrapped by Keir Starmer’s government.
The ruling, delivered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, marks a significant victory for Britain and brings an end to a dispute that emerged after Labour cancelled the Rwanda scheme within days of taking office in July 2024.
Rwanda had argued that the UK breached the terms of the agreement after abandoning the partnership, claiming it had incurred substantial costs preparing to receive asylum seekers. However, the court found in Britain’s favour and rejected Rwanda’s demands for compensation.
The agreement, first unveiled by Boris Johnson in 2022 and later championed by Rishi Sunak, was designed to deter illegal Channel crossings by relocating asylum seekers who arrived in the UK through irregular routes to Rwanda, where their claims would be processed. Those granted refugee status would have remained in Rwanda rather than settling in Britain.
During a three-day hearing in the Netherlands, lawyers representing the UK argued that it was entirely reasonable for an incoming government to reverse a flagship policy of its predecessor and maintained that no further payments were due once the scheme had been cancelled. They also rejected claims that Britain had breached the agreement.
Rwanda’s Justice Minister and Attorney General, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, told the court that the country had incurred significant costs preparing for the partnership and accused the UK of failing to honour its commitments. He also claimed Rwanda was not informed in advance that the scheme was being scrapped and instead learned of the decision through media reports.
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 migration by making clear that those arriving in Britain illegally would not be allowed to remain in the UK.
However, the policy became 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.
Labour made scrapping the scheme a central election pledge and, shortly after entering Downing Street, Starmer declared the policy “dead and buried”. Ministers argued the scheme was costly, ineffective and incapable of delivering the scale of removals needed to deter illegal migration.
Critics, however, argue that the policy was abandoned before it had the opportunity to demonstrate whether it could work. They point out that repeated legal challenges meant the scheme was never implemented at scale, making it impossible to judge its effectiveness as a deterrent.
Prominent 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 have argued that ending the Rwanda scheme weakened Britain’s ability to deter illegal migration and disrupt the business model of people-smuggling gangs. Senior Conservatives, including Kemi Badenoch and Chris Philp, have also continued to defend the principle of third-country removals, arguing that a credible deterrent is necessary to reduce illegal Channel crossings and restore control of the asylum system.
Supporters of the policy also point to international examples. Australia’s offshore processing system, which transferred migrants arriving by boat to facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, was followed by a dramatic reduction in unauthorised maritime arrivals and has frequently been cited by advocates of tougher border controls. Similar approaches are increasingly being explored elsewhere, with several European countries examining external processing arrangements and Italy pursuing plans to process some asylum claims outside its territory.
Backers of the Rwanda policy argue that Britain spent years overcoming legal obstacles and establishing the framework for a deterrent-based system, only for Labour to dismantle it before it could be properly tested. They contend the decision was driven by political opposition to the policy rather than evidence about whether it would ultimately succeed.
The government rejects those claims and insists its approach focuses on strengthening border security, increasing deportations of failed asylum seekers and targeting criminal smuggling networks.
While the court’s ruling settles the financial dispute between London and Kigali, it is unlikely to end the wider political argument over whether Labour scrapped a potentially effective deterrent just as other countries were moving towards similar policies.
