Rwanda sues Great Britain: Always read the fine print

R Uanda sues Great Britainbecause the migration deal between the two countries never materialized. The agreement was a bad idea from the start. It was initiated by Great Britain in 2022 with the aim of using deterrence to reduce migration across the English Channel. “If you come, we’ll send you to Rwanda, so don’t even try!” – that was the message. All of this had little effect. On the contrary: the number of asylum applications doubled.

The then Tory government arranged the deal through its friendly relations with Rwanda – and offered a lot of money for it: the equivalent of 800 million euros. This is an enormous sum for an African country. Rwanda was very convenient for the British: it was not only considered safe, but also hospitable.

Rwanda is already hosting 130,000 refugees, more than the UK has asylum applications per year. The country is small, poor and doesn’t have enough jobs itself. As early as 2019, Rwanda agreed to accept refugees rescued from Libya as part of a UNHCR program. Most of them might otherwise have tried to find their way to Europe or Great Britain. Rwanda offered them work permits and health insurance.

It was good and right that lawyers in London took to the barricades against the deal. Not because Rwanda is not “safe”, as has often been argued, but because of Britain’s own deterrence policy is inhumane. When the Labor government came to power in 2024, the deal was scrapped. But without having studied the fine print. Because it specifically stated that London still had to pay the advance even if it pulled out.

Instead of seeking an agreement, Prime Minister Keir Starmer blamed Rwanda’s military aid to the Congolese rebels of the M23 as a reason why it could no longer send money to Kigali, even to fulfill contracts that it had arranged itself. It is therefore more than understandable that Rwanda is now taking this to arbitration.