Rwanda is causing controversy a few weeks after it announced it had partnered with the UK to take in migrants seeking asylum there.
Asylum seekers are coming under the proposed scheme on small boats across the transmitter from France is immediately transferred to Rwanda, where the paperwork is being processed.
But the deal, released on April 14, continues to raise dust, despite attempts by Britain and Rwanda to squash critics of it convince the policy aims to save lives and prevent human trafficking, the final decision on whether the UK will implement the signed MoU will be made in court.
Read:Rwanda shoulders the burden of British asylum seekers, Kenya rejected
For one thing, activists say the scheme violates the 1951 Refugee Convention, a United Nations treaty n Nations, which stipulates that the signatory states may not impose penalties on asylum seekers and refugees. illegal entry and presence because of them.”
Last week UK-based NGOs including Freedom From Torture, which supports survivors of torture who are often asylum seekers and refugees, and Care4Calais and Public and Commercial Die Services union representing most Border Force staff wrote to the UK Home Office asking for more information before taking the government to court.
Apart from the legal challenges, the stakes are high for Rwanda, because there are questions about it. Motivation in the partnership. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has urged the UK and Rwanda to reconsider the agreement, citing concerns about the increased risk of refugees seeking alternative routes and increased pressure on frontline states.Despite the scathing criticism, Rwanda is steadfast and claims that it seeks a humane solution to the global migration problem and that welcoming refugees is an extension of Rwanda’s welcoming policy towards all migrants, whether they seek refuge or not have a chance.
Rwanda already hosts nearly 130,000 refugees from several countries, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Libya and Afghanistan.
Read:Rwanda takes in 119 more evacuees from Libya
Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame has dismissed suggestions that his country would engage in the “human trafficking en” as critics point to the UK’s $160 million paycheck under the partnership, and he reiterated that Rwanda was acting in good faith as they were already refugees from countries like Libya, where they were being held in detention centers. and more recently from Afghanistan.
On April 26, President Kagame said he was being forced to act early on, as he had done during his 2018 African Union presidency, after media reports revealed that many young Africans in the Mediterranean died trying to reach Europe after being smuggled out of Libya.
“There are things you can’t buy from us… We are not involved in the buying and selling of people … it’s just a problem … people will have different views on it, but at the end of the day you have to do something,” President Kagame told diplomats accredited to Rwanda Währ during their annual dinner in Kigali.
Read:Rwanda shows Africa how it treats immigrants
But it’s not just Kigali’s critics who oppose the scheme. Some of its allies are also opposed, arguing that Rwanda shouldn’t let itself be “dragged in the mud” by a wealthy country that shirks its responsibilities.
“Criticism focuses on the UK, but it also affects Rwanda by association. The arrangement isn’t worth all the trouble it’s causing Rwanda as a brand,” a retired foreign diplomat, who asked not to be named, told The EastAfrican.
“On the one hand, the Rwandan government is paying a football team to encourage people to visit Rwanda, on the other hand some people are deported to Rwanda. It creates confusion,” said the diplomat, adding that if the deal were thrown out by British courts, Rwanda’s image as a progressive African country would be damaged.
Andrew Mitchell, UK MP for Sutton Coldfield and a Der Former international development minister who is considered a “friend of Rwanda” says his government’s plan with Rwanda will be impractical, ineffective and expensive.
“There is a better and more humane way to kill the smugglers fight ‘ dirty and vile business model. Attempting to indiscriminately put people on planes bound for Central Africa is a breach of our international obligations, bad for the reputation of our country and the Conservative Party, incredibly expensive and highly unlikely to achieve its objective,” Mr Mitchell said.