Rédaction Africa Links 24 with Africa News
Published on 2024-02-12 11:38:11
The plan by the British government to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda has sparked controversy and raised concerns about human rights obligations. The bill, known as the Safety of Rwanda Bill, is currently being debated in the House of Lords after facing criticism from the U.K. Supreme Court. The court ruled that the Rwanda plan is illegal and that Rwanda is not a safe country for migrants.
The bill is designed to declare Rwanda as a safe country, making it more difficult for migrants to challenge deportation and allowing the British government to disregard injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights. However, the Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised serious concerns about the bill, stating that it could lead to the U.K. breaching international law and acting in a manner incompatible with human rights standards.
Joanna Cherry, a Scottish National Party lawmaker and chair of the committee, emphasized that the bill poses a risk to the U.K.’s reputation as a proponent of human rights. She expressed that the bill is hostile to human rights and removes vital safeguards against persecution and human rights abuses.
In response, the Home Office defended the Rwanda plan as a “bold and innovative” solution to the global challenge of asylum-seekers arriving in the U.K. The government argued that Rwanda is a safe country that supports refugees and is capable of resettling asylum-seekers. The plan is part of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s initiative to deter unauthorized migrants from making risky journeys and to disrupt the operations of people-smuggling gangs.
Despite the government’s stance, human rights groups have criticized the plan as inhumane and unworkable. Additionally, no asylum-seekers have been sent to Rwanda as of yet. In light of the Supreme Court ruling, Britain and Rwanda signed a treaty to enhance protections for migrants, with the Conservative government contending that the treaty allows it to pass a law designating Rwanda as a safe destination.
The bill was passed by the House of Commons, albeit with rebellions from 60 members of the Conservative party who sought to make the legislation tougher. It is now under scrutiny by the House of Lords, where many members aim to defeat or amend the bill. While the Lords can delay and revise legislation, they cannot overrule the elected Commons.
The contentious nature of the Safety of Rwanda Bill has prompted intense debate and scrutiny, highlighting the complex and sensitive issues surrounding asylum-seekers, human rights, and international obligations. The outcome of the deliberations in the House of Lords will have significant implications for the U.K.’s approach to asylum policies and its commitment to upholding human rights standards.
Read Original article on Africa News
