The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s administration, deeming the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as unlawful. The court’s decision highlighted concerns over the safety and potential risk of ill-treatment faced by asylum seekers upon relocation to Rwanda.

In response to the court ruling, Prime Minister Sunak vowed to introduce emergency legislation affirming Rwanda as a safe country for relocated individuals. This legislation aims to legally safeguard those relocated to Rwanda against removal and prevent further delays in deportation flights by curbing challenges in domestic courts.

However, human rights groups, including 140 organizations, expressed strong opposition to the plan, labeling it as “cruel and immoral.” Maddie Harris from Humans for Rights Network emphasized that the emergency law doesn’t eliminate the risk to individuals and criticized the government’s stance on potential harm to those sent back to Rwanda.

The decision poses a challenge to Sunak, whose promises to address undocumented migration face hurdles as the government prepares for an upcoming general election. Catherine Woollard from the European Council on Refugees and Exiles warned of a potential rule-of-law crisis if the government doesn’t respect the Supreme Court’s decision.

Critics argue that the government’s attempt to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda breaches international law and undermines fundamental human rights. Amnesty International UK and other groups called for a fair and efficient asylum process instead of policies exacerbating chaos within the system.

The government’s contemplation of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights to facilitate deportations to Rwanda faced strong opposition. Such a move, critics argue, undermines established rights and could impact agreements such as the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.

Organizations like the Committee on the Administration of Justice emphasized the need for a fair and rights-compliant immigration system, stressing the significance of upholding human rights in the community.

As the government plans its next steps, the debate intensifies between immigration policy, human rights obligations, and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental liberties.