San Francisco Frontiers - Britain, Rwanda in £100m court clash over migrant deal

Officials from the two countries will lay out their case at a three-day hearing before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, set up in 1899 to settle contractual disputes between nations.

A three-judge panel will weigh the clash over the controversial scheme that quickly became a political and legal hot potato.

The two nations are already at loggerheads after Britain slashed aid to Rwanda, accusing it of supporting M23 rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

In 2022, former prime minister Boris Johnson sealed a deal with Kigali to send migrants arriving in Britain via "dangerous or illegal journeys" in small boats or lorries to Rwanda.

But the scheme hit legal and political obstacles from the start, with the UK Supreme Court eventually slapping it down as illegal.

When Keir Starmer became prime minister in July 2024, he declared the plan "dead and buried" on his first full day in office, dismissing it as a "gimmick."

Then interior minister Yvette Cooper called it "the most shocking waste of taxpayers' money I have ever seen."

During the two years before the scheme was scrapped, only four people actually went to Rwanda, according to the current UK government, all voluntarily.

According to the UK government website, about £290 million has already been paid to Rwanda, but Kigali argued in its pre-hearing submissions to the PCA that two annual payments of £50m were still outstanding.

"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 said in its 37-page case.

- 'Rightly aggrieved' -

Rwanda also claims an additional £6m, as it says the UK breached a reciprocal agreement to house its "most vulnerable refugees", mainly fleeing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

It put the cost of accommodating these individuals at £6m.

Finally, Rwanda urged judges to order Britain to issue a formal apology for breaching the deal.

"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," its submission says.

"Rwanda is rightly aggrieved by the UK's conduct and seeks an apology."

Britain's response points to "obvious weaknesses" in Rwanda's legal argument, adding: "Rwanda cannot genuinely be seeking to vindicate any supposed legal right through these claims."

London alleged that Rwanda's "real motivation" was a response to Britain's decision last year to suspend most of its financial aid over Kigali's support for the M23 group's offensive in DRC.

On the same day this was announced, according to Britain's submission, Rwanda suddenly went back on its agreement to waive future payments due from the migrant deal.

When the aid was removed, Rwanda government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo said trust between the two countries had been breached by what she called "unjustified punitive measures."

"The United Kingdom respectfully requests that the Tribunal dismiss each of Rwanda's claims," Britain concluded in its submission.

Officials from Rwanda will set out their case on Wednesday, with British lawyers responding on Thursday. Both sides sum up on Friday.

The PCA will likely take several months to issue its ruling.

Immigration remains a hot-button issue in Britain, which left the European Union in 2020, largely on a promise to "take back control" of its borders.

R.Moore--SFF