\n<\/p>\n
Britain\u2019s Supreme Court will rule on Wednesday whether the government\u2019s contentious policy to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful, in a pivotal moment for the ruling Conservative Party during an already turbulent week<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Rwanda policy was first announced<\/a> in April 2022 by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as he attempted to make good on a Brexit campaign promise to \u201ctake back control\u201d of the country\u2019s borders.<\/p>\n The hard-line policy has since been pursued<\/a> by Mr. Johnson\u2019s successors, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, with each repeating his original untested argument that the threat of being deported to Rwanda would deter the tens of thousands of people who try to cross the English Channel in small boats each year.<\/p>\n But it has been widely criticized by rights groups and opposition politicians from the start, with many pointing to Rwanda\u2019s troubled record on human rights<\/a>. And to date no one has been sent to the small East African nation, because of a series of legal challenges.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The first flight deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda was scheduled for June 14, 2022, but it was grounded<\/a> because of an interim ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which said an Iraqi man should not be deported until his judicial review had been completed in Britain. As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights<\/a>, an international agreement that Britain helped draft after World War II, the country accepts judgments from the Strasbourg court. (Both the court and the Convention are entirely separate from the European Union.)<\/p>\n Last December, Britain\u2019s High Court ruled in favor of the government, determining that the Rwanda plan was lawful in principle<\/a> and consistent with legal obligations, including those imposed by Parliament with the 1998 Human Rights Act.<\/p>\n But in June, the Court of Appeal ruled<\/a> that Rwanda was not, in fact, a safe third country, and that there was a real risk that asylum seekers would be returned to home countries where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, even if they had a good claim for asylum. That would represent a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, the court said.<\/p>\n The case finally came to Britain\u2019s highest court, the Supreme Court, last month, when five judges heard arguments from the government, and from opponents of the plan, over three days.<\/p>\n At that hearing, Raza Husain, a lawyer representing 10 asylum seekers from a number of conflict zones, argued that Rwanda\u2019s asylum system was \u201cwoefully deficient and marked by acute unfairness.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n James Eadie, who represented the government, argued that while Rwanda was \u201cless attractive\u201d than Britain, it was \u201cnevertheless safe\u201d for the asylum seekers, pointing to assurances made in the agreement between the two countries.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Angus McCullough, a lawyer for the United Nations refugee agency, <\/span>told the judges it \u201cmaintains its unequivocal warning against the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda under the UK-Rwanda arrangement,\u201d according to reporting from The Guardian<\/a>. He cited evidence that a similar policy pursued by Israel led to the disappearance of some asylum seekers after they arrived in Rwanda.<\/p>\n The expected ruling comes at a time of intense political turmoil in the Conservative Party, which has held power for 13 years and is lagging in the polls.<\/p>\n The home secretary, Suella Braverman, <\/span>was fired<\/a> on Monday after igniting a political firestorm over comments that homelessness was a \u201clifestyle choice.\u201d She also criticized the police over a pro-Palestinian march in London. It will now be up to her successor, James Cleverly, to oversee the response to the Supreme Court decision, just two days after he was appointed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Ms. Braverman had been an outspoken proponent of the deportation plan, once saying it was her \u201cdream\u201d to see asylum seekers sent to Rwanda. She has also argued that Britain should be prepared to reform or even leave<\/a> the European Convention on Human Rights. In an excoriating letter<\/a> to Mr. Sunak on Tuesday, she accused him of betraying a private promise to use legislation to override the convention, the Human Rights Act and other international law that she said \u201chad thus far obstructed progress\u201d on stopping the boats. <\/p>\n \u201cI was clear from day one that if you did not wish to leave the E.C.H.R.,\u201d she wrote, \u201cThe way to securely and swiftly deliver our Rwanda partnership would be to block off the E.C.H.R., the H.R.A. and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the U.K.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Hours after her firing on Monday, Robert Jenrick, Britain\u2019s immigration minister, seemed to signal that the government would not simply accept a Supreme Court decision to strike down the policy. \u201cWe have to ensure the Rwanda policy succeeds before the next general election,\u201d he told The Telegraph<\/a>. \u201cNo ifs, no buts, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that happens.\u201d<\/p>\n Ragim Sagoo, director of the international law program at Chatham House, a British think tank, said that withdrawing from the European Convention, while still a fringe notion, \u201cwill continue to be the ball that gets played,\u201d particularly if the Supreme Court rules against the government.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u201cFrom my analysis, it\u2019s a really odd and unconvincing proposition,\u201d she said. \u201cBut it\u2019s got really serious implications, which require deep scrutiny.\u201d<\/p>\n Even if the court rules in favor of the government, that won\u2019t mean the authorities can immediately charter a plane to Rwanda, because the asylum seekers who are affected may still be able to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n Sunder Katwala, the director of British Future, a think tank focused on attitudes to immigration, said that no matter what the outcome, Mr. Sunak will face an uphill battle to put the policy in place.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n He predicted continued loud calls, from Ms. Braverman and her hard-right allies, for Britain to leave the European Convention.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u201cBut this week\u2019s reshuffle sends a strong signal that the prime minister does not agree,\u201d Mr. Katwala said in a statement, suggesting that Mr. Sunak might instead send Mr. Cameron, the newly appointed foreign secretary, \u201cto try to renegotiate the terms of the U.K.\u2019s participation.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe bigger challenge would be showing whether the scheme, if lawful, can work,\u201d Mr. Kalwala said. \u201cRwanda\u2019s asylum system can only take up to 1 percent of those who have come to Britain this year. That is a major practical hurdle, on top of the arguments against the scheme in principle.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n