The United Nations continues to send hundreds of refugees to Rwanda while claiming it is too dangerous for Channel migrants, it emerged yesterday.
The UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has battled Britain’s Rwanda asylum deal in court, saying the African nation is unsafe and could deprive migrants of their human rights.
But figures obtained by the Daily Mail show the organisation has sent 1,737 refugees to Rwanda since 2019 – including 134 just four months ago – as part of its flagship emergency transit mechanism.
The programme has seen migrants from Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, Guinea and Mali flown to Rwanda. Unlike the UK policy, this is a voluntary scheme.
Rwanda’s leaders yesterday insisted they were looking forward to working with the UK, while expressing surprise at the UNHCR’s apparent hypocrisy.
Refugees sent by the UNHCR were accommodated at the Gashora asylum centre (pictured) near Kigali, which was visited last year by Mail journalists
The Gashora asylum centre resembled a holiday camp, with air-conditioned rooms, a buffet, Wi-Fi, stunning countryside views, football pitches, basketball courts, pool tables and a fully equipped kids’ club. Here, refugees sit and wait their turn for a driving lesson
British Home Secretary Suella Braverman visits Bwiza Riverside Houses in Kigali, Rwanda on March 18, 2023. She has said she will ‘do whatever it takes’ if its plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is ‘thwarted in Strasbourg’
Rwandan government spokesman Yolande Makolo said: ‘We’ve had a good relationship with the UNHCR. The emergency transit mechanism is one of the projects we’ve worked on with them.
‘Even though there will be challenges with the UK partnership, we want to work through them together and would like the UNHCR to play a role in that.
‘I’m sure they also want to ensure refugees and migrants are taken care of, live in a safe place and have opportunities to develop. This is what we’ve always offered with the limited means that we have, and now with this well-resourced partnership with the UK, we can do it even better.’
The UK’s Rwanda policy is designed to deter migrants from making dangerous journeys across the Channel and help ease the burden on Britain’s asylum system.
It was halted last year by a string of legal challenges. Ten migrants from Albania, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Vietnam – all single men who arrived in the UK on small boats – say it would breach their human rights. Their case, backed by the UNHCR, reached the Supreme Court this week.
During a three-day hearing to determine the lawfulness of the scheme, Laura Dubinsky KC, for the UNHCR, told judges: ‘Rwanda’s refugee system is flawed by arbitrariness and unfairness and is not capable of delivering accurate decisions.
‘Entrenched deficiencies in that system will require long-term reform and building of capacity.’ In April, the UNHCR made similar claims at the Court of Appeal, declaring that Rwanda may deprive refugees of their human rights.
But the Mail can reveal that seven weeks later, on June 12, a convoy of 134 refugees were flown into Rwanda by the UNHCR.
They were accommodated at the Gashora asylum centre near Kigali, which was visited last year by Mail journalists.
The United Nations continues to send hundreds of refugees to Rwanda while claiming it is too dangerous for Channel migrants (File photo of group thought to be migrants in Dover)
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court (pictured) was warned it should give ‘respect to the judgment of His Majesty’s Government’ in deciding whether Rwanda can be trusted to abide by human rights law
It resembled a holiday camp, with air-conditioned rooms, a buffet, Wi-Fi, stunning countryside views, football pitches, basketball courts, pool tables and a fully equipped kids’ club.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court was warned it should give ‘respect to the judgment of His Majesty’s Government’ in deciding whether Rwanda can be trusted to abide by human rights law.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Secretary, said the Government is ‘well placed’ to judge how a friendly foreign state will behave.’
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its verdict before Christmas.
