Rwanda arbitration case set to have long term influence on UK asylum policy
Ruth GreenWednesday 18 March 2026
The Peace Palace, The Hague, Netherlands. Ankor light/Adobe Stock
A dispute between the UK and Rwanda over a cancelled bilateral asylum deal is due to be heard at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in March. Commentators say it’s a case that could have long-term implications for UK asylum policy and influence future bilateral deals in this area.
The case follows the UK government’s decision to withdraw from the Migration and Economic Development Partnership in late 2024. Under the partnership, originally brokered in 2022, the UK agreed to send payments to Rwanda to host asylum seekers as part of broader plans by ministers to tackle irregular migration to the UK.
Rwanda’s government says it has brought the proceedings – through which it’s seeking £100m in compensation – regarding three claims. Specifically, it accuses the UK of publicly setting out the financial terms of the deal, of not making payments worth £100m and of ‘refusing to make arrangements to resettle vulnerable refugees from Rwanda’. Under the scheme, the UK would have resettled a number of refugees currently being hosted by Rwanda, including, for example those with acute health problems.
Rwanda’s government says the UK has failed to renegotiate and agree ‘new financial terms’ and ‘made clear that it has no intention of making any further payment under the treaty.’ A Home Office spokesperson has said that ‘the previous government’s Rwanda policy wasted vast sums of taxpayer time and money. We will robustly defend our position to protect British taxpayers.’ In response to Global Insight’s enquiries, the Home Office says it has no further comment while the case is ongoing.
Despite several domestic legal challenges, the controversial deal became law in April 2024 after UK lawmakers passed the Safety of Rwanda Act, duly designating the country safe for migrants to be relocated to. However, only four asylum seekers arrived in Rwanda – and all voluntarily under a separate removals programme – prior to the deal being abandoned in summer 2024 after the UK general election resulted in a change of government. The UK officially terminated the deal later that year.
Domestic legal defeats, stalled removal flights and now an international arbitration claim has made one thing unmistakably clear: externalisation comes with real legal and political costs
Chetal Patel
Officer, IBA Immigration and Nationality Law Committee
The partnership had cost the UK government around £715m by June 2024, according to data published by the country’s Migration Observatory. Had it continued, a further £220m would have been paid directly to Rwanda for the offshore processing scheme, including two instalments of £50m due in 2025 and 2026.
At the beginning of 2025, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act repealed the Safety of Rwanda Act in UK law. Almost a year on, Rwanda’s arbitration case shows that the international ramifications of the UK’s decision to pull out of the bilateral deal are still being felt.
According to the case’s procedural timetable, the hearing is scheduled to take place on 18 March and the award is due to be issued in May. Chetal Patel, an officer of the IBA Immigration and Nationality Law Committee, says the outcome could have significant implications for UK immigration policy. ‘These developments are likely to inform and influence the UK’s future immigration strategy,’ she says. ‘The experience of domestic legal defeats, stalled removal flights and now an international arbitration claim has made one thing unmistakably clear: externalisation comes with real legal and political costs.’
Faustin Ntwari is a Rwandan lawyer and legal researcher specialising in commercial law, international dispute resolution and public international law. He says that if the tribunal affirms that the agreement is legally enforceable, Ntwari is confident this would demonstrate that arbitration is a viable enforcement mechanism for bilateral ‘cooperation agreements outside the traditional trade and investment sphere’. If Rwanda’s claims are dismissed on merit, he’s doubtful that this alone would deter countries from entering into similar migration deals in future. ‘For African states in particular,’ he says, ‘the lesson would not necessarily be to avoid such agreements, but to ensure that dispute resolution clauses, termination procedures and financial safeguards are drafted with enforceability in mind from the outset.’
Patel, Head of Immigration at Bates Wells, London, says the dispute underscores the need for the UK to identify a ‘workable’ solution if it is seeking to impact migration into the country. ‘The collapse of the Rwanda model underscores the limits of offshoring and signals that the UK will need solutions that are workable in practice and consistent with its human rights obligations,’ she says.
A similarly controversial migration deal struck between Italy and Albania has also suffered a number of legal setbacks. In August, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Italy’s designation of ‘safe’ countries contravened EU law.
In February, Italy pushed forward with legislation that, if passed, would accelerate the deportation procedure for migrants from so-called ‘safe’ countries. The same week, the EU Council formally adopted new rules for safe third countries ahead of the bloc’s Migration and Asylum Pact fully coming into force in June. Notably, the new EU-wide list of safe countries automatically presumes candidate countries, including Albania, are safe provided they’re not subject to EU sanctions, are not experiencing armed conflict and their citizens have an EU-wide asylum recognition rate of more than 20 per cent.