An international court has ruled that the United Kingdom will not be required to pay millions of dollars to Rwanda following the collapse of a controversial asylum relocation agreement between the two countries.
The decision relates to a policy introduced under the previous Conservative government, which aimed to transfer some asylum seekers arriving in the UK to Rwanda for processing and resettlement.
The plan faced sustained legal and political challenges from its inception and was later declared unlawful by the UK Supreme Court, leading to its cancellation by Prime Minister Keir Starmer shortly after taking office in 2024.
At the time, UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper described the policy as the “most shocking waste of taxpayer money I have ever seen.”
Following the termination of the agreement, Rwanda filed a claim seeking more than $130 million, arguing that it was still entitled to payments under the original deal despite the breach.
However, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that the UK was not liable for two years of outstanding costs related to the scheme.
The ruling, dated 15 May but publicly announced on Monday, also dismissed two additional claims brought by Rwanda concerning alleged breaches of the agreement.
A spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, said Kigali respected the ruling and considered the matter concluded, while noting that a dissenting opinion indicated the case involved complex legal interpretations.
She added that Rwanda would continue to engage constructively with international partners in line with international norms and mutual cooperation.
The UK government welcomed the decision, stating that it remains focused on broader immigration reforms aimed at reducing irregular migration and increasing the removal of individuals without legal status.
Officials said the government’s priorities now include tightening border controls, removing incentives for irregular migration, and scaling up enforcement measures.
The ruling brings legal closure to one of the most contentious migration policies in recent UK political history, which had drawn widespread debate over its legality, cost, and humanitarian implications.
