The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration Bill) has now been passed by both Houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent. The Government accepted only limited amendments to the legislation during its passage. Accordingly, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 (“the Act”) makes a statutory declaration that Rwanda is a “safe” country, which is binding on all decision-makers notwithstanding any other provision of domestic law or international law.
Startlingly the Act further provides that courts “must not consider” evidence about the general mistreatment of people that the UK Government has sent to Rwanda, no matter the severity of the circumstances; and it makes a blanket assertion that Rwanda is safe (contradicting the factual judgment of the Supreme Court), and will always be safe, no matter the evidence to the contrary.
As the curtains close on the Parliamentary stage, the action is now likely to move to the courts. Although the Act explicitly seeks to exclude most routes of legal challenge, it seems unlikely to go untested, with challenges already being mounted, including one from an unexpected source.
On 1 May, the FDA, the union for professionals and managers in public service, submitted an application for judicial review relating to the relationship between the Civil Service Code (“the Code”) and the new Act. The challenge focuses on the fact that, were the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) to indicate interim measures delaying or preventing removal of people to Rwanda on human rights grounds, government ministers could decide whether (or not) to comply. The FDA is concerned this has the potential to put civil servants in a position where they are instructed by ministers to breach international law, which conflicts with their fundamental duties under the Civil Service Code to act in compliance with domestic and international law.
A spokesperson for the FDA has indicated that the Government had time to include an explicit provision in the Act dealing with breaches of international law, and was warned in March of the issues which any failure to do so might cause, but declined to act. The FDA argues this was not a slip-up, but a deliberate choice by the Government, the effect of which is to risk putting civil servants in an impossible position where they could be accused either of breach of the Code, or of acting politically if they do not follow instructions by ministers to disregard ECtHR interim measures.
This marks the beginning of what could be significant and wide-ranging challenges to the Act, both from within and without the machinery of Government. If you or your organisation needs advice on the impact of the Act, or thinks it might have a challenge, our specialist Public Law team can help. We are led by Matthew Smith, a former senior central Government lawyer, whose experience of working with, and advising, Ministers gives him an in depth understanding of the potential political and policy impacts for clients of this new legislation.