Rwanda has escalated its dispute with the United Kingdom over the collapse of their controversial asylum agreement by initiating international arbitration, arguing that Britain still owes significant payments under the deal despite abandoning it.
Rwanda has filed proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, deepening a diplomatic and legal standoff that has lingered since the UK government scrapped the policy in 2024. The agreement, which formally took effect on April 25, 2024, was designed to allow Britain to relocate asylum seekers who entered the UK illegally to Rwanda in exchange for substantial financial compensation.
The arrangement barely got off the ground. Only four individuals reportedly travelled to Rwanda voluntarily before a change in government in London brought the policy to an abrupt end. In July 2024, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, shortly after leading Labour to power, declared the scheme “dead and buried,” effectively terminating a flagship policy of his predecessor, Rishi Sunak.
Rwanda says the decision was taken unilaterally and without consultation, violating both the spirit and the letter of the agreement. In a statement, the Rwandan government said the UK’s withdrawal breached the treaty’s financial provisions and specific obligations related to refugee resettlement.
The legal dispute is complicated by the UK Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that the asylum arrangement was unlawful under domestic and international law. That judgment forced the UK government to halt implementation, but it did not explicitly settle whether Britain remained financially liable for commitments already made under the treaty.
Legal experts remain divided. Some argue that a contract deemed unlawful cannot generate enforceable claims. Others contend that domestic court rulings do not automatically extinguish obligations under international agreements. Rwanda is leaning on this latter interpretation, insisting that Britain failed to properly terminate or suspend the treaty in line with its provisions or under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
According to sources familiar with the matter, Rwanda’s case centres on alleged violations of Articles 18 and 19 of the agreement, including Britain’s failure to meet payment schedules and its decision not to resettle vulnerable refugees as initially agreed.
British officials have previously acknowledged the financial scale of the programme. Former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper disclosed that about £290 million had already been paid to Rwanda before the scheme was abandoned. In November 2024, the UK reportedly asked Rwanda to waive two additional payments of £50 million each, due in April 2025 and April 2026, citing its intention to formally terminate the deal.
Rwanda says it was open to renegotiation but only if the agreement was officially ended and new financial terms were settled. According to Kigali, those discussions never took place, leaving the outstanding sums “due and payable” under the treaty.
The UK government has since drawn a clear line, stating it does not intend to release any further funds tied to the abandoned policy. The arbitration process now sets the stage for a potentially precedent-setting ruling on the limits of domestic court decisions, treaty obligations, and financial responsibility between states.
The outcome could have broader implications for how future migration agreements are structured and unwound, particularly as countries increasingly experiment with externalising asylum systems under political pressure at home.
