Rwanda Sues UK Over £100m Migrant Deal Dispute
Rwanda has initiated legal proceedings against the United Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, demanding over £100 million in outstanding payments from a controversial migrant deportation agreement that was terminated by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government in July 2024.
Officials from both countries appeared before a three-judge panel at the oak-panelled arbitration court on Wednesday, with Rwanda’s Justice Minister Emmanuel Ugirashebuja telling the tribunal that Kigali “regretted” having to pursue legal action but had been left with no alternative following Britain’s refusal to honour its financial obligations.
“However, the United Kingdom’s intransigence has left Rwanda with no other choice to vindicate its rights,” Ugirashebuja stated during the opening session at the PCA, an international institution established in 1899 to resolve contractual disputes between sovereign states.
The legal confrontation comes against a backdrop of deteriorating diplomatic relations between London and Kigali, following Britain’s decision to suspend most of its financial aid to Rwanda over allegations that the East African nation is supporting M23 rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a charge that has drawn widespread international condemnation.
The contested deportation scheme was sealed in April 2022 by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who announced a partnership with Rwanda to relocate asylum seekers and migrants arriving in Britain through what the government classified as “dangerous or illegal journeys” via small boats across the English Channel or concealed in lorries.
Under the arrangement, individuals who reached British shores irregularly would be flown to Rwanda for processing and potential resettlement, with London providing substantial financial compensation to Kigali for receiving and accommodating the migrants. The policy was presented by the Conservative government as a deterrent measure aimed at disrupting human trafficking networks and discouraging perilous Channel crossings that had claimed numerous lives.
However, the scheme encountered immediate legal and political resistance from human rights organizations, refugee advocacy groups, and opposition parties who challenged its legality and morality. The United Kingdom Supreme Court delivered a decisive blow to the policy in November 2023, ruling it unlawful on grounds that Rwanda could not be considered a safe third country for asylum processing, citing risks of refoulement, where individuals could be returned to countries where they face persecution.
When Starmer’s Labour Party won the general election in July 2024, the new Prime Minister declared the deportation plan “dead and buried” on his first full day in office, dismissing it as a “gimmick” that had failed to deliver results while consuming enormous public resources. Interior Minister Yvette Cooper described the scheme as “the most shocking waste of taxpayers’ money I have ever seen,” highlighting the financial drain on the Treasury.
According to the current British government, only four individuals were actually relocated to Rwanda during the two years the agreement remained operational, and all four departed voluntarily rather than through forced deportation. This outcome raised questions about the scheme’s effectiveness and value for money, particularly given the substantial sums already transferred to Kigali.
Official UK government records indicate that approximately £290 million had been paid to Rwanda before the scheme’s termination, covering infrastructure development, accommodation facilities, administrative costs, and initial processing arrangements. However, in its 37-page submission to the PCA, Rwanda contends that two annual payments of £50 million each remain outstanding, bringing the disputed amount to £100 million.
“The UK’s termination of the deal does not change the UK’s obligation to pay any amount that was already due and payable,” Rwanda argued in its pre-hearing case documents, insisting that contractual obligations survived the political decision to abandon the partnership.
Beyond the £100 million in unpaid installments, Rwanda is also claiming an additional £6 million related to what it describes as Britain’s breach of a reciprocal arrangement to accommodate vulnerable refugees, primarily individuals fleeing conflict in the DRC. Kigali estimates the cost of housing these refugees at £6 million and argues that London failed to meet its commitments under the bilateral agreement.
In a move that underscores the diplomatic tensions, Rwanda has also requested that the arbitration panel order Britain to issue a formal apology for what it characterizes as an unilateral breach of contractual obligations driven by shifting domestic political calculations rather than legitimate legal grounds.
“Rwanda considers that it was wrong for the UK to walk away from its obligations simply because its internal political assessment of the agreement’s convenience had changed,” the Rwandan submission states. “Rwanda is rightly aggrieved by the UK’s conduct and seeks an apology.”
Britain’s legal team has dismissed Rwanda’s claims as lacking merit, pointing to what it describes as “obvious weaknesses” in Kigali’s legal arguments. London has suggested that Rwanda’s motivation for pursuing the case is not genuinely rooted in vindication of legal rights but rather represents retaliation for Britain’s suspension of aid over the M23 issue.
“Rwanda cannot genuinely be seeking to vindicate any supposed legal right through these claims,” the British submission argues, alleging that the timing and substance of the lawsuit are politically motivated.
According to Britain’s case documents, Rwanda had initially agreed to waive future payments following the scheme’s termination but reversed this position on the same day London announced the suspension of most financial aid in response to credible evidence of Rwandan support for M23 rebels operating in eastern DRC. The M23 group, which has seized significant territory in North Kivu province, has been accused of widespread atrocities, displacement of civilian populations, and exacerbating one of Africa’s most protracted humanitarian crises.
Multiple international investigations, including reports by United Nations experts and independent monitoring groups, have documented Rwandan military and logistical support for M23, allegations that President Paul Kagame’s government has consistently denied. The conflict in eastern DRC has displaced over six million people and created severe humanitarian conditions, prompting calls from the international community for Rwanda to cease its alleged backing of armed groups.
Britain’s decision to cut aid to Rwanda reflected growing pressure from humanitarian organizations and parliamentary scrutiny over the appropriateness of maintaining financial partnerships with a government implicated in regional destabilization. The aid suspension marked a significant shift in UK-Rwanda relations, which had been characterized by close cooperation on development, security, and migration management issues.
Professor Phil Clark of SOAS University of London, who specializes in conflict and post-conflict issues in Central Africa, analyzed the lawsuit as a strategic move by Rwanda to reassert its value to Western partners despite mounting criticism over its DRC conduct.
“The timing of Rwanda’s case against the UK is clearly deliberate, as the country attracts increasing criticism over its support for M23,” Clark stated. “Rwanda wants to knock the international community back on its heels and remind its global partners of its immense worth in the migration and peacekeeping spaces that matter so much to the likes of the UK and the EU.”
The Permanent Court of Arbitration, based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, provides a neutral forum for resolving disputes between states, international organizations, and private parties. Unlike the International Court of Justice, which handles disputes based on international law and treaty obligations, the PCA primarily focuses on contractual and commercial disagreements arising from bilateral or multilateral agreements.
Rwanda’s legal representatives presented their full case on Wednesday, with British lawyers scheduled to respond on Thursday. Both parties will deliver closing arguments on Friday, after which the three-judge panel will deliberate. The PCA typically takes several months to issue formal rulings, meaning a final decision is not expected before mid-2026.
The outcome of the arbitration could have significant implications for future bilateral agreements involving migration management, as countries increasingly seek legal recourse when partnerships are terminated unilaterally. It also highlights the complex interplay between contractual obligations and political considerations in international relations, particularly when domestic electoral changes result in policy reversals that affect foreign partners.
For Rwanda, a favorable ruling would not only secure substantial financial compensation but also validate its position that Western nations cannot arbitrarily abandon agreements when political winds shift. For Britain, successfully defending against the claim would affirm its right to terminate partnerships deemed ineffective or inconsistent with new government priorities, without incurring additional financial penalties.
The legal battle unfolds as both nations navigate broader challenges in their respective international positions. Britain continues to grapple with record levels of irregular Channel crossings, with over 36,000 migrants arriving via small boats in 2024 according to Home Office statistics, while Rwanda faces growing diplomatic isolation over its DRC activities despite its efforts to position itself as a key partner in regional stability and migration management.
The court proceedings are expected to continue through Friday, with a final judgment anticipated several months thereafter.
Rwanda, United Kingdom, Permanent Court of Arbitration, migrant deportation, Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer, asylum seekers, M23 rebels, Democratic Republic of Congo, international law