Rwanda, asylum seekers and the rule of law

The Rwanda policy has no parliamentary endorsement. The use of a memorandum of understanding instead of a formal treaty meant that there was no parliamentary scrutiny before it was announced, writes Nicolas Bratza

The courts’ detailed scrutiny of the Rwanda policy is of central importance not only for the protection of the human rights of the individuals facing the risk of removal to Rwanda but for the upholding of the rule of law (Getty Images)

For five days from 5 September, the High Court in London will hear the first set of challenges to the legality of the secretary of state’s controversial policy to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The hearing will include key official documents revealing serious misgivings about the policy on the part of officials in the home office and the foreign, Commonwealth and development office, as well as evidence from the UN high commissioner for refugees questioning Rwanda’s ability to deal fairly with asylum seekers who may be removed there.

A second, linked claim brought by the charity Asylum Aid will be heard in October, focusing on the fairness of the procedure that the home office has implemented and is applying to individuals it is seeking to remove to Rwanda.