The UK will not have to pay Rwanda millions of pounds over the failed migrant deportation deal after winning an international court case.
The two countries clashed in a three-day hearing in March at The Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands.
The east African nation sued Britain for more than £100 million, claiming it breached the terms of its agreement and is owed the money.
During the case lawyers representing Britain argued it was “entirely logical” the plan would be scrapped when Labour came into power after the 2024 general election and “simple common sense” that no further payments would be due.
According to legal papers, Rwanda asked the court to find the UK in breach of the agreement and demanded it pay all outstanding sums, as well as compensation.
But lawyers for the UK denied it had breached parts of the deal and said “Rwanda is not entitled to any of the forms of relief it seeks” when asking the court to dismiss the claims.
Earlier this year, Downing Street defended the decision to scrap the previous Tory administration’s plan when it emerged Rwanda was taking the UK to court.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer declared the plan “dead and buried” as one of his first moves in office.
Before the election, the Conservative government had already spent £700 million on its flagship immigration policy under which migrants who arrived in the UK by boat from France would be sent to Kigali in a bid to deter Channel crossings.
But just four volunteers ultimately arrived in Rwanda before the plan was scrapped.
Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, Rwanda’s minister of justice and attorney general, previously told the court the country incurred “significant costs” preparing for the partnership but the UK “then sought to walk away from its legal obligations”.
He also said 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”.
In a document setting out Rwanda’s claim, Mr Ugirashebuja asked the court to rule that the UK had breached the agreement and should pay about £100 million that it was due to receive in two instalments in 2024 and 2025, plus £6 million 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.
Rwanda told the court that the UK’s negotiating strategy was like a “salesman who, having realised he’s not going to get the deal that he wanted, just starts saying: Please, please sign on the dotted line.”
One of the arbitrators in the case, Professor Mohamed Abdel Wahab, said the UK should pay Rwanda £50 million for the second year of the scheme, but he was overruled by the majority.
Responding to the court’s decision, a Government spokesperson said: “The UK robustly defended its position, and the tribunal has now ruled in favour of the UK on all grounds.
“The previous government’s policy wasted time and £700 million of taxpayer money to send four volunteers to Rwanda.
“We are 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.”
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “For once a foreign court has shown some sense. However, we should not be in the position where such courts have jurisdiction over the decisions made by our sovereign parliament.
“We must leave the ECHR so we are able to implement schemes like the Rwanda scheme.
“Labour should have never cancelled the Rwanda plan. Since then we have seen record crossings, record asylum claims, and communities across Britain facing the consequence for Labour’s failure.”
Yolande Makolo, a spokeswoman for the Rwandan government said: “While Rwanda respects the tribunal’s award and considers the matter concluded, we note that the dissenting and separate opinion by Professor Mohamed Abdel Wahab shows that the issues before the tribunal were complex and open to different legal conclusions.
“Rwanda will continue to work constructively with international partners, guided by international norms and mutually beneficial co-operation.”
