Members of the House of Lords Echo REDRESS’ Concerns about Torture Regarding the Rwanda Bill

Several members of the House of Lords have called on the UK Government to halt the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, echoing REDRESS’ concerns.  

The Bill, which was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court last year, would see some asylum seekers arriving in the UK sent to Rwanda to have their claims processed there, and aims to prevent any legal challenges including those relating to torture. REDRESS opposes the Bill in its entirety, but if it does become law, it must be amended to prevent an increased risk of torture, and to guarantee that it does not cause further harm to survivors of torture. 

Baroness Lister, Baroness D’Souza, and Lord Cashman were joined by Lord Clarke, Lord Coaker and Lord Anderson in calling for the UK Government to consider the prevalence of torture in Rwanda, and uphold its international obligations by not sending asylum seekers to the country until it can ensure that their human rights will not be violated. Their statements were made during the ‘committee stage’ scrutiny of the Bill in the House of Lords last week and quoted from a REDRESS’ briefing paper on the matter 

REDRESS has worked with Baroness Lister of Burtersett to submit an amendment to the Bill which would bar the UK government from sending survivors of torture to Rwanda or deeming Rwanda safe if torture had taken place in Rwanda in the last two years. 

In her address, Baroness Lister highlighted evidence indicating ongoing human rights violations in Rwanda, notably alleged incidents of torture. Our briefing paper notes consistent and ongoing allegations of human rights abuses by Rwandan authorities (including torture), suggesting a systemic failure in Rwanda to establish effective safeguards to prevent torture or an effective process for responding to allegations of torture. It was on the basis of such concerns that the Supreme Court concluded that Rwanda was not a ‘safe’ country to which asylum seekers could be sent. 

Baroness Lister also called attention to the vulnerability of asylum seekers who come to the UK, many of whom have experienced torture. According to estimates, between 27% and 44% of refugees and asylum seekers in countries like the UK will have experienced torture. Because of ongoing deficiencies in its asylum system, asylum seekers relocated to Rwanda (as well as running the risk of suffering torture themselves) would likely encounter a risk of refoulment, or return by Rwandan authorities to their countries of origin, even when those countries are not safe. 

“The UK Government also appears to be insisting that Rwanda is safe now, and always will be safe, regardless of any evidence which may emerge to the contrary in the future. REDRESS reiterates its call for the UK Government to adhere to its international legal obligations including the absolute prohibition on torture.”

The recently signed bi-lateral treaty between the UK and Rwanda effectively admits that there is no adequate system at present to prevent refoulement. The House of Lords International Agreements Committee has called for delays to ratification of the treaty and highlighted human rights concerns, such as risks to victims of trauma, victims of human trafficking, and LGBTIQ+ people. In REDRESS’s submission to the Committee’s inquiry, we stressed that the UK-Rwanda treaty lacks proof of Rwanda meeting its international obligations, notably on non-refoulement. 

The UK Government’s response to the House of Lords debate did not adequately address our concerns. Lord Stewart of Dirleton, representing the Government, argued that since Rwanda has signed key human rights conventions, there is effectively no risk of torture, and stressed that the Bill would mean that Parliament rather than the courts would determine the safety of Rwanda.  

However, these arguments overlook the clear allegations summarised in our Briefing paper, which suggest that Rwandan authorities do not always respect the country’s international commitments, and that torture and ill-treatment still take place in the country. The UK Government also appears to be insisting that Rwanda is safe now, and always will be safe, regardless of any evidence which may emerge to the contrary in the future. 

REDRESS reiterates its call for the UK Government to adhere to its international legal obligations including the absolute prohibition on torture, rather than pursuing a Bill which, if enacted, will cause these obligations to be breached. The Government should withdraw its assertion that Rwanda is (and always will be) free of torture and ill-treatment, as it contradicts current credible evidence to the contrary. The bill sends out a dangerous signal that the UK is willing to circumvent the rule of law, and so undermines the international rules-based order. The UK has historically led the way in establishing the rule of law, and should not now contribute to the threats it faces. 

Photo: Baroness Lister of Burtersett has submitted an amendment to the Safety of Rwanda Bill which would bar the UK government from sending survivors of torture to Rwanda or deeming Rwanda safe if torture had taken place in Rwanda in the last two years.