Rwanda sues UK at Hague over migrant deal payments

Body

Rwanda said it has sued the United Kingdom seeking payments over a migrant deal that was aborted after it entered into force, drawing the dispute into international arbitration at The Hague. Rwanda announced that it filed proceedings with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, according to a statement by the Rwandan government.

Rwanda said the agreement entered into force on April 25, 2024 under terms signed by former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, under which Rwanda would host deported asylum seekers from the UK in exchange for payments. Rwanda said only four people came to Rwanda voluntarily under the plan.

Rwanda said UK policy changed after Keir Starmer became prime minister. In July 2024, soon after taking office, Starmer said the deal was “dead and buried,” according to the Rwandan government, which said he did so “without prior notice to Rwanda, contrary to the spirit of the partnership that had always characterized the agreement.”

Rwanda pointed to the UK Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that the Rwanda-UK plan was unlawful and ordered it to be scrapped after it found the deal violated both UK law and international law. Legal experts have questioned whether parties to an unlawful contract can still seek financial remedies, Rwanda said.

In its arbitration case, Rwanda alleged that the UK breached the treaty’s financial arrangements and Article 18, and that it violated Article 19 by refusing to resettle vulnerable refugees. The case also comes against UK statements that the program’s costs included £290 million in payments to Rwanda, and that the UK later sought to avoid additional payments due under the deal.

Rwanda said that in November 2024, the UK requested Rwanda forgo two payments of £50 million each that were due in April 2025 and April 2026, saying it was doing so while anticipating the formal termination of the treaty. Rwanda said it indicated it was prepared to accept new financial terms if the treaty was terminated, but it said “Discussions between Rwanda and the United Kingdom did not, however, ultimately take place, and the amounts remain due and payable under the treaty.”

A Rwandan international law expert, Jonathan Musangwa, said Rwanda still has a chance to pursue remedies even after the UK Supreme Court ruling. Musangwa told The Associated Press that a domestic judgment may limit how a government carries out the scheme internally, but it “does not by itself terminate the treaty or erase obligations that already exist between the states,” according to his remarks.

Musangwa said the tribunal will need to examine whether the state then lawfully terminated or suspended the agreement under its terms or under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. He added that, even if domestic courts found otherwise, an arbitral tribunal may still find an internationally wrongful act and address responsibility and reparation.

Rwanda said the UK has made clear that it has “no intention of making any further payments under the agreement.” The dispute now shifts from the UK’s domestic legal battle to a cross-border question of whether treaty obligations survive after a court ruling and how any termination or suspension should be handled under international law.