Rwanda vs UK: The fallout from a scrapped migrant deal

Rwanda has launched an international legal challenge against the United Kingdom in a move that has refocused attention on one of the most controversial migration policies of recent years, even after it was scrapped.

The East African nation has filed a case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, arguing that London failed to honour financial commitments under a treaty that was meant to see some asylum seekers relocated to Rwanda.

From a policy initiative to a courtroom battle

The original agreement, formally known as the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP), was signed between the UK and Rwanda in April 2022 under then‑Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government.

It set out a novel arrangement: the UK would pay Rwanda to host and process certain asylum seekers who reached British shores, with the aims of deterring dangerous Channel crossings and breaking the business model of people smugglers.

By the time the policy collapsed, the UK had already transferred around £240 million to Kigali, and only four volunteers had actually been relocated under the scheme before it was effectively abandoned.

When Labour leader Sir Keir Starmertook office in July 2024, he moved swiftly to end the deal, calling it ineffective and saying it was “dead and buried.” The British Home Office later confirmed that £220m of scheduled future payments would no longer be made and pledged to "robustly defend" that position to “protect British taxpayers.”

However, Kigali’s position now is that simply terminating the policy politically was not enough to wipe away the UK’s treaty obligations.

Rwanda argues that without a formal termination under the treaty’s terms, the UK remains liable for payments that were due, specifically two instalments of £50 million each scheduled for April 2025 and April 2026, which together form part of a £100m claim.

Three core disputes in arbitration

According to Rwanda’s submission to the court, the legal case centres on at least three claims:

That the UK breached financial provisions under the treaty by refusing to pay sums that were already due. Rwanda again says London failed to comply with agreed processes for formally ending the treaty. Rwanda continues by saying the UK also didn’t honour commitments to resettle vulnerable refugees in the UK as part of the partnership.

Michael Butera, chief technical adviser to Rwanda’s justice ministry, said Kigali tried diplomatic engagement before resorting to arbitration but was left with “no other choice” because of the UK’s “intransigence.”

Why the legal fight matters

This arbitration has implications that go beyond a simple money dispute. Experts note it could test how binding international treaties remain when domestic politics change, especially when a subsequent government scraps a policy negotiated by its predecessor.

For Rwanda, a legal ruling in its favour could reinforce trust in bilateral agreements and strengthen its negotiating power in future partnerships.

It also raises questions about the UK’s reputation for upholding international commitments, especially at a time when migration policy remains a fiercely debated topic domestically.

London insists it will defend its case in the Hague and has underscored that the original scheme failed to deter Channel crossings and was wasteful of public funds, a point Home Office officials have repeatedly defended.

A backdrop of controversy and criticism

From the start, the Rwanda plan faced heavy criticism, both in the UK and internationally. Legal challenges culminated in a 2023 UK Supreme Court ruling that parts of the scheme were unlawful, and human rights advocates warned that transferring asylum seekers risked breaching international protections.

Some commentators also point to the broader diplomatic relationship: the UK suspended some foreign aid to Rwanda over concerns related to Rwanda’s alleged involvement in conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, tensions that may have further cooled negotiations prior to the arbitration filing.

What comes next

The case is currently listed as pending before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a respected forum for resolving state‑to‑state disputes. Its outcome could set an important precedent for how migration and asylum partnerships are structured, and how political shifts intersect with international treaty law.

For now, Kigali’s decision to take London to court has transformed a widely criticised migration policy into a substantive legal and diplomatic confrontation with ramifications for both nations and for future international cooperation on migration.