Gambian asylum seekers rejoice as UK judges rule against deportation to Rwanda 

The ruling by the highly respected court in a country cherished for its independent judiciary is described as a “major setback” to the government’s so-called pledge to “stop the boats”.

Subsequently, the decision has temporarily shut the door for the controversial and fiercely debated immigration plans.

Further disputing the government’s claims, the court also touched on one of the most contentious issues by declaring that “Rwanda could not be considered as a safe third country” because the asylum seekers could be “sent back to their home countries.”

Both the UK government and authorities in Rwanda insisted that Kigali is “safe.”

Mr. B.N., a Gambian asylum seeker who previously received a warning via his solicitor that he may be transferred to Rwanda in a letter stating “...You are liable to detention, and by failing to report as required, you render yourself liable to prosecution under Section 24 (1) (e) of the Immigration Act 1971...” told The Point that he was “comforted for the meantime”.

Separately, an asylum application read by this correspondent referred to the “era of the dictatorship of Yahya Jammeh” but was refused as the applicant spent “few years” in another country before arriving in the UK by boat.

However, in an appeal letter, the applicant responded that even though the APRC regime is no-longer the government of the day, former NIA officials that “persecuted and ill-treated” him are still “operating across the country.” 

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reacting to the decision said he “respect/(respects) the court,” but at the same time, he “fundamentally disagrees” with the ruling.

The Rwandan government also maintained that the country “is one of the safest countries in the world” which prompted unprecedented criticisms from prominent Rwandans across Europe denouncing the regime in Kigali as a “real dictatorship.”

Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition Labour party noted that the policy “already cost the taxpayer £140m… is headline-grabbing gimmick scheme…and not fit for purpose.”

The UNHCR also expressed “concerns about the externalization of the UK’s asylum obligations… urges fair and fast asylum procedures that would be more humane, efficient, and cost-effective”. 

The Law Society of England and Wales earlier raised “questions about the foundations of British justice by forcing them to make their claim for sanctuary in that country instead of in the UK.” 

Lubna Shuja, Vice President of the Law Society, a highly respected lawyer revealed to this correspondent that a "judicial review" will also be conducted. 

Prominent churches and several other human right groups and Charities in a separate statement said that the plans are “deplorable.”

Despite the criticisms, the UK government is standing on its ground and not retreating by immediately revealing that it will “challenge the decision and take it to the Supreme Court.”