By Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
An international arbitration panel has rejected a multimillion-dollar claim by Rwanda against the United Kingdom over a collapsed asylum seeker deportation deal.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands dismissed the legal challenge, freeing London from the threat of paying more than £100 million ($134 million) (approx. 1.58 billion GHS) in outstanding costs and damages. The decision brings a decisive legal conclusion to a highly controversial migration pact that strained diplomatic relations and cost British taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds before any deportees were forcibly sent to East Africa.
An Abrupt Political Shift
The migration partnership was first engineered in 2022 by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It was designed so that asylum seekers arriving in the UK “illegally” from a safe country, such as France, would be sent to Rwanda and have their claims processed there. Under the agreement, if successful, they could be granted refugee status and allowed to stay in Rwanda.
The Conservative government under Rishi Sunak later championed the scheme as a crucial deterrent against small boat crossings in the English Channel. Before the 2024 general election, the Conservative government had already spent £700 million (approx. 11.08 billion GHS) on its policy.
The scheme faced significant political and legal obstacles from its inception. The first flight that had been scheduled to take off under the plan in 2022 was grounded minutes before take-off due to an intervention from the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR), which triggered a series of legal challenges in London courts. Britain’s Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the policy was unlawful because Rwanda is not a safe third country for migrants sent there.
A voluntary removals programme was subsequently announced in 2024, under which migrants whose claims were rejected were offered up to £3,000 (approx. 47,500 GHS) to move to the east African country. However, the program yielded minimal results. Only four people were voluntarily removed to Rwanda, while roughly £290 million (approx. 4.59 billion GHS) had already been transferred to Kigali.
When Keir Starmer assumed office as Prime Minister in July 2024, he moved immediately to fulfill a Labour party manifesto pledge, declaring the plan “dead and buried” on his first full day in office and dismissing it as a “gimmick”.
Financial Demands and Diplomatic Friction
Following the cancellation, the Rwandan government launched legal proceedings, asserting that the UK had breached the bilateral agreement. In legal submissions, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, Rwanda’s minister of justice and attorney general, told the court the country had incurred “significant costs” preparing for the partnership, but the UK “then sought to walk away from its legal obligations”.
The legal dispute centered on two annual funding installments of £50 million (approx. 792 million GHS) each that Rwanda argued were still owed for 2024 and 2025. In a document setting out Rwanda’s claim, Ugirashebuja asked the court to rule that the UK had breached the agreement and should pay about £100m in two installments in 2024 and 2025, plus £6m (approx. 95 million GHS) in compensation and interest. Instead of compensation, he said Rwanda would accept a formal apology from the UK for failing to honour parts of the deal.
The Rwandan delegation also expressed frustration over how the cancellation was handled. Ugirashebuja stated that the UK “did not do Rwanda a courtesy of informing it in advance” that it was scrapping the deal, and leaders were “left to read about this development in the media”. At the time the deal was scrapped, Yvette Cooper, Starmer’s home secretary, heavily criticized the spending, calling it the “most shocking waste of taxpayer money I have ever seen.”
The Legal Battle in The Hague
During a three-day hearing at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, British legal representatives argued that the cancellation was a predictable outcome of a democratic election. Lawyers representing the UK during the three-day hearing in the Netherlands
had argued that it was “entirely logical” the plan would be scrapped when Labour came to power and “simple common sense” that no further payments would be due.
The British defense denied any breach of contract. “Rwanda is not entitled to any of the forms of relief it seeks,” they told the Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration as they requested a total dismissal of the case.
The international tribunal sided predominantly with London. In a 76-page ruling, the panel said that written diplomatic exchanges between the two countries after Starmer scrapped the deal amounted to an agreement that the U.K. would not make the two 50 million-pound payments, due in April of 2025 and 2026, to cover costs of migrant relocations. The decision revealed a divided panel, as the court rejected by majority the first £50 million claim and unanimously rejected the second £50 million claim, alongside the demands for compensation and alternative remedies.
Divergent Paths Moving Forward
Both governments issued statements following the formal publication of the tribunal’s award, signaling a desire to move past the litigation despite lingering policy disagreements.
A UK government spokesperson welcomed the absolute dismissal of the claims. “The U.K. robustly defended its position, and the tribunal has now ruled in favor of the U.K. on all grounds,” the spokesperson said. The statement added that Starmer’s administration is “now focused on delivering vital reforms to restore order and control to our borders, including removing the incentives drawing illegal migrants to Britain and scaling up removals of those with no right to be here.”
Rwandan Government spokesperson Yolande Makolo indicated that Kigali would abide by the ruling, though she highlighted internal divisions among the arbitrators. Makolo stated that Rwanda “respects the tribunal’s award and considers the matter concluded,” but she also noted a dissenting opinion by one of the arbitrators that she said “shows that the issues before the tribunal were complex and open to different legal conclusions.” She added that “Rwanda will continue to work constructively with international partners, guided by international norms and mutually beneficial cooperation.”
The conclusion of the arbitration removes a multi-million pound liability from the British ledger, but broader geopolitical tensions between the two nations remain. The two nations are already in dispute after the UK slashed aid to Rwanda, accusing it of supporting M23 rebels in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Continental Debate on Offshore Processing
The Hague’s final ruling arrives amid a long-standing resistance within Africa against European attempts to outsource asylum obligations. When the UK originally sought third-party states for its “Operation Dead Meat” strategy, countries across the continent expressed deep skepticism. Ghana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was quick to flatly reject any suggestions of hosting offshore processing centers, calling such reports absolute nonsense and reiterating that the nation would not participate in externalized asylum schemes.
Additionally, the African Union previously condemned similar European legislative maneuvers, characterizing the offshoring of border management as an attempt by wealthy Western states to abdicate their international humanitarian responsibilities. For West African states, the collapse of the UK-Rwanda pact vindicates arguments that offshore processing is a fundamentally flawed policy model.
Ultimately, the tribunal’s ruling marks the final closing of a highly experimental chapter in Western externalized migration policies. While London frees itself from a significant financial overhang to focus on domestic border enforcement, Kigali maintains its status as an active hub for international partnerships, leaving both nations to navigate their respective migration and diplomatic challenges on entirely separate trajectories.
