The UK will not have to pay Rwanda more than £100 million after an international court rejected a compensation claim linked to the scrapped Rwanda asylum scheme.
The ruling brings to an end a legal dispute that arose after Sir Keir Starmer’s government cancelled the controversial policy shortly after Labour won the 2024 General Election.
Rwanda argued Britain had breached the agreement and sought compensation for money it said had been spent preparing to receive asylum seekers under the scheme. However, judges at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in favour of the UK.
The Rwanda plan, introduced by the previous Conservative government, was designed to deter illegal Channel crossings by sending some asylum seekers to the east African country for their claims to be processed. Successful applicants would have remained in Rwanda rather than settling in Britain.
The policy became one of the most controversial immigration measures in recent years and faced a series of legal challenges before it could be fully implemented. The first planned deportation flight was stopped in 2022 following intervention by the European Court of Human Rights.
Labour made scrapping the scheme a key election pledge and, after taking office, Sir Keir described the policy as “dead and buried”. Ministers argued it was expensive, ineffective and unlikely to stop people crossing the Channel in small boats.
The government welcomed the court’s decision, saying it had successfully defended Britain’s position and remained focused on strengthening border security and increasing removals of people with no right to remain in the UK.
However, the ruling is unlikely to end the political row surrounding the policy. Supporters of the scheme argue it was never given the chance to prove whether it could work because years of legal challenges prevented it from operating at scale.
Prominent supporters included former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, former Home Secretaries Suella Braverman and Priti Patel, and former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick, who all argued the policy would have acted as a powerful deterrent to illegal migration.
Backers of the scheme also point to countries such as Australia, where offshore processing arrangements have been credited with reducing unauthorised boat arrivals. Several European countries are also exploring similar approaches to handling asylum claims.
Critics of Labour’s decision argue the government abandoned the policy before its effectiveness could be properly tested. Labour maintains the scheme was unworkable and represented poor value for taxpayers.
While the court’s decision settles the financial dispute between Britain and Rwanda, the wider argument over how to tackle illegal migration looks set to continue.
Main Image: For illustration purposes only.
