The United Kingdom has won an international arbitration case brought by the Government of Rwanda after Britain terminated a migration agreement that would have allowed certain asylum seekers who entered the UK illegally to be relocated to Rwanda.
HOW THE SCHEME WAS DESIGNED
In 2022, Rwanda and the United Kingdom signed an agreement under which individuals who entered the UK illegally or applied for asylum after arriving through irregular routes could be transferred to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed and, if approved, they could be resettled.
As part of the agreement, the UK committed to supporting Rwanda through the Economic Transformation and Integration Fund (ETIF), which was expected to receive a total of £370 million. Rwanda was also set to receive an additional £120 million once 300 migrants had been relocated, along with £20,000 for each person transferred and support costs of up to £150,874 per individual over five years.
Before the programme was cancelled, the UK had already paid Rwanda £290 million. Of this amount, £270 million was allocated to the ETIF, while £20 million was provided for reception and preparation activities related to the relocation programme.
The UK government also stated that the overall cost of the scheme had reached approximately £715 million by June 2024. Despite this expenditure, no asylum seeker was forcibly transferred to Rwanda, while only four individuals voluntarily relocated under a separate arrangement.
After Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government cancelled the scheme in 2024, the UK announced that it would not make the remaining scheduled payments. These included £50 million due in April 2025, another £50 million due in April 2026, and £120 million that would only have been paid if 300 migrants had been relocated.
As a result, Britain argued that more than £220 million in future payments would no longer be owed.
On 24 November 2025, Rwanda filed a case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague. Kigali argued that a change in political leadership in London should not release the UK from its contractual commitments.
Rwanda sought payment of the £50 million due in the second year of the agreement and additional amounts linked to the following year, estimated at either £50 million or £10.4 million, depending on the interpretation of the contract. Rwanda also requested £6 million in damages or compensation because the UK had not implemented a separate commitment to receive vulnerable refugees from Rwanda.
However, in a ruling dated 15 May 2026 and publicly released on 1 June 2026, the PCA rejected Rwanda’s claims. The tribunal found that diplomatic exchanges between the two countries in November 2024 demonstrated Rwanda’s acceptance that the outstanding payments would not be made. The court also rejected the claim for £6 million in damages.
As a result, the UK prevailed in the arbitration and was not ordered to pay any additional funds to Rwanda.
In summary, Rwanda had already received £290 million under the migration partnership. After the scheme was cancelled, Rwanda sought up to £106 million in additional payments, excluding interest. The Hague tribunal rejected all of these claims and ruled that the UK has no further financial obligations under the agreement.
THE COURT’S DECISION
The tribunal concluded that the UK is not required to make additional payments requested by Rwanda following the cancellation of the migration partnership by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government in 2024.
Rwanda had argued that Britain breached its commitments under the agreement, which was designed to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing.
During hearings in The Hague, UK lawyers maintained that the policy change following the election justified the cancellation of the scheme and that no additional payments were due.
The court agreed with the UK’s position and rejected Rwanda’s compensation claims.
Following the ruling, the Rwandan government said it respected the tribunal’s decision and considered the matter concluded. However, it noted that one arbitrator expressed a dissenting opinion, suggesting that some legal issues could have been interpreted differently.
WATCH NATION RADIO TV’S FULL ANALYSIS OF THIS CASE (VIDEO)
Rwanda’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, had argued before the tribunal that Rwanda incurred significant costs preparing for the agreement and that the UK had failed to honour its obligations.
The scheme was originally launched in 2022 under former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and later supported by Rishi Sunak as part of efforts to deter illegal crossings of the English Channel.
The policy, however, faced numerous legal challenges. The first planned deportation flight was halted at the last minute following intervention by the European Court of Human Rights.
After cancelling the partnership, the UK introduced a voluntary relocation programme offering rejected asylum seekers up to £3,000 to move to Rwanda. Reports indicate that only four individuals accepted the offer.
The British government welcomed the ruling, while critics of the scheme argued that it caused delays and disruption within the asylum system.
— Article written by Nation Radio TV.
