The Bill that was bitterly rejected by both human right lawyers and other national and international charity groups was unexpectedly permitted when the House of Lords withdrew the assurance on either to “amend or scrap” it altogether.
Concerned Gambians are now urged to immediately seek legal advice in order to establish their immigration status.
Even though the Court of Appeal judges earlier issued a ruling bluntly declaring that the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was “unlawful” and disputed government’s claims, that “Rwanda could not be considered as a safe third country”, the Lords disagreed.
Consequently, following two years of both political and legal challenges, the government in Rwanda said it is “pleased by it … and keen to receive the migrants as soon as possible”.
Despite criticisms by the opposition as “astonishingly expensive … and a gimmick”; disapproved by legal advocates that the Rwanda scheme is “cruel, costly and misguided”, the government has hailed the victory.
It described it as “landmark moment in our plan to stop the boats…deter criminal gangs who are exploiting migrants”.
Notwithstanding, experts said that there are “no jobs in Rwanda … people are fleeing due to instability and rebel activity across its borders”.
They equally decried the "lack of freedoms, a viable press and divergent opinions" in the country.
Mr. B.N., a Gambian asylum seeker who previously revealed to The Point the content of a warning letter via his solicitor noted: “Since the previous letter, I did not receive any communication from the immigration. I was a bit calmer but now I’m feeling tense day by day”.
Conversely, this correspondent learnt that Gambian asylum applicants who had previously relied on the “terrible era of the dictatorship of Yahya Jammeh” may no longer be considered “genuine” taking into consideration the current civilian administration in the country.
The Bill will be granted a Royal Assent for it to become law.
