Monday, January 29, 2024
The lie at the heart of government policy
As the Rwanda bill heads to the Lords for the first time this week, it is worth reflecting on the basic lie that sits at its heart, that Rwanda is a safe country to send refugees to.
Of course, the high court has already ruled that it is not safe to ship asylum seekers out to Africa, but the government disagrees and are seeking to legislate to make it safe, that is pass a law to argue that night is day, and vice versa.
Unfortunately, for the conservative ministers who are making this case, their own administration is undermining their argument.
The Guardian reports that four Rwandans were granted refugee status in the UK over “well-founded” fears of persecution at the same time as the government was arguing in court and parliament that the east African country was a safe place to send asylum seekers.
The paper adds that this decision by the Home Office, and the documents the paper has unearthed, raises fresh questions over prime minister Rishi Sunak’s claim that Rwanda is “unequivocally” safe for asylum seekers:
The Conservative government wants to send all asylum seekers who enter the UK across the Channel on small boats to Rwanda, arguing it would act as a deterrent. The supreme court last year ruled that Rwanda was unsafe, leading Sunak to introduce new legislation which, he argues, allays those concerns.
The investigation has also seen details of a dossier compiled by a western intelligence agency that accused Rwanda of orchestrating a dirty tricks campaign to smear and undermine critics including those based in the UK. It is further claimed that a London PR firm set up social media accounts to target a British author, but the company has denied this.
One of the Rwandans was granted asylum by the Home Office on 12 October, the day after the government concluded a case in the supreme court arguing the country was safe.
The refugee was a supporter of an opposition party led by Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, who is campaigning for justice for colleagues who have been killed or disappeared. The Rwandan also witnessed alleged atrocities committed by president Paul Kagame’s forces in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
He and his wife were granted asylum with the Home Office stating in a letter: “We accept that you have a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore cannot return to your country Rwanda, and we have recognised that you are a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention.”
The refugee, who still fears for his safety, said: “Britain should stop pretending this is a safe place. Find some other excuse for sending people to Rwanda but don’t say it’s because the place is ‘safe’, because that’s just insulting to people like me.”
Another Rwandan refugee who has spoken on the grounds of anonymity said he sought refuge in the UK because he feared he would be targeted by the regime over a family member’s suspected links to the opposition.
A Home Office decision letter dated 17 October 2023 accepted he had a “well-founded fear of persecution”. The Rwandan said refugees sent to his country would be safe if they keep their head down and did not criticise the government, but if they started speaking out they would get into trouble.
He said: “If that were to happen in Rwanda, then you’re treading a very fine line. Anything can happen to you. It doesn’t really take much in Rwanda. Even the mere suspicion of being sympathetic to the opposition is enough. People have died for much, much less, they have been imprisoned for much, much less.
Another asylum seeker from the African state was a woman who was being forced by the regime to work for the Rwandan intelligence. She was granted asylum on 24 November, according to information by Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, an organisation supporting people subject to immigration control.
All four cases were given asylum on application to the Home Office, without need to go to tribunal.
I am sure that the House of Lords will be very interested in these findings.
Of course, the high court has already ruled that it is not safe to ship asylum seekers out to Africa, but the government disagrees and are seeking to legislate to make it safe, that is pass a law to argue that night is day, and vice versa.
Unfortunately, for the conservative ministers who are making this case, their own administration is undermining their argument.
The Guardian reports that four Rwandans were granted refugee status in the UK over “well-founded” fears of persecution at the same time as the government was arguing in court and parliament that the east African country was a safe place to send asylum seekers.
The paper adds that this decision by the Home Office, and the documents the paper has unearthed, raises fresh questions over prime minister Rishi Sunak’s claim that Rwanda is “unequivocally” safe for asylum seekers:
The Conservative government wants to send all asylum seekers who enter the UK across the Channel on small boats to Rwanda, arguing it would act as a deterrent. The supreme court last year ruled that Rwanda was unsafe, leading Sunak to introduce new legislation which, he argues, allays those concerns.
The investigation has also seen details of a dossier compiled by a western intelligence agency that accused Rwanda of orchestrating a dirty tricks campaign to smear and undermine critics including those based in the UK. It is further claimed that a London PR firm set up social media accounts to target a British author, but the company has denied this.
One of the Rwandans was granted asylum by the Home Office on 12 October, the day after the government concluded a case in the supreme court arguing the country was safe.
The refugee was a supporter of an opposition party led by Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, who is campaigning for justice for colleagues who have been killed or disappeared. The Rwandan also witnessed alleged atrocities committed by president Paul Kagame’s forces in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
He and his wife were granted asylum with the Home Office stating in a letter: “We accept that you have a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore cannot return to your country Rwanda, and we have recognised that you are a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention.”
The refugee, who still fears for his safety, said: “Britain should stop pretending this is a safe place. Find some other excuse for sending people to Rwanda but don’t say it’s because the place is ‘safe’, because that’s just insulting to people like me.”
Another Rwandan refugee who has spoken on the grounds of anonymity said he sought refuge in the UK because he feared he would be targeted by the regime over a family member’s suspected links to the opposition.
A Home Office decision letter dated 17 October 2023 accepted he had a “well-founded fear of persecution”. The Rwandan said refugees sent to his country would be safe if they keep their head down and did not criticise the government, but if they started speaking out they would get into trouble.
He said: “If that were to happen in Rwanda, then you’re treading a very fine line. Anything can happen to you. It doesn’t really take much in Rwanda. Even the mere suspicion of being sympathetic to the opposition is enough. People have died for much, much less, they have been imprisoned for much, much less.
Another asylum seeker from the African state was a woman who was being forced by the regime to work for the Rwandan intelligence. She was granted asylum on 24 November, according to information by Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, an organisation supporting people subject to immigration control.
All four cases were given asylum on application to the Home Office, without need to go to tribunal.
I am sure that the House of Lords will be very interested in these findings.
