LONDON, (Reuters) – After suffering a devastating defeat in the country’s top court, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak aims to revive his flagship immigration policy though legal experts question whether it will be enough to overcome the legal obstacles.
The UK Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled the government’s scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, leadingmembers of parliament in Sunak’s Conservative Party to demand he find a way to enact one of his government’s centrepiecepledges.
Sunak said he was working on a new treaty with Rwanda that would address the points made by the court, would pass an emergency law to designate Rwanda a safe country, and was “prepared to do what is necessary” to stop any foreign court blocking deportation flights.
But whether his actions will be enough to satisfy the courts, or restless members on the right of his party, some of whom have warned of a leadership challenge, remain to be seen.
“The PM was right to say we have to do ‘whatever it takes’ – but it’s now clear that what it will ‘take’ is more than a reheat of this, or a new treaty with Rwanda,” said Conservative lawmaker Neil O’Brien.
“We tried the cautious approach and that was reasonable – but we now know for sure – tinkering won’t work.”
In their ruling, the judges said Rwanda had to make “significant changes” before it could be considered a safe third country for migrants, highlighting judicial failings as well as its record of compliance with other international treaties.
James Cleverly, Britain’s new interior minister, said the Rwanda deal would be upgraded to a legally-binding treaty from a memorandum of understanding, and ensure that anyone removed to Rwanda could not be sent to another country apart from Britain.
“You would have to have Rwanda promising to fix all these things, but even that on its own I am not sure, reading the judgment, would be enough to make it safe,” Gavin Phillipson, professor of law at the University of Bristol, told Reuters.
Alan Greene, a reader in Constitutional Law and Human Rights at Birmingham Law School, said it was not clear how a new treaty would solve the concerns raised by the Supreme Court about Britain’s adherence to international obligations.
