THE issue of sending asylum seekers who come to Britain looking for a new life to Rwanda is not a simple one.
Conversations around the topic have been both national and local for Essex, with then home secretary and Witham MP Priti Patel signing the deal between the two countries - and now Braintree MP James Cleverly is taking up the baton.
Professor Theodore Konstadinides from the University of Essex has been at the forefront of the debate, playing an important role in the House of Lord’s scrutiny of the government’s Rwanda policy.
Prof Theodore, as he likes to be called, has given both written evidence, alongside his colleague Rebecca Amor, and oral evidence to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee - the only committee currently in Parliament which scrutinises international agreements.
Prof Theodore said it was likely that he was chosen to speak due to his previous evidence submitted with colleague Anastasia Karatzia to the same committee the year before and his own UK Constitutional Law Association blog post in 2022, reposted by the Inner Temple Library.
Speaking to the Gazette, Prof Theodore said the main issue is “whether Rwanda is a safe country or not” and the risk of the relocated asylum seekers being subjected to "inhuman and degrading treatment".
He added that the government’s policy is further boosted by the Rwanda Safety Bill 2023, which is currently before Parliament and obliges decision-makers to conclusively treat Rwanda as a safe country.
Prof Theodore said there was “no certainty that asylum applications would be processed in Rwanda fairly” given evidence from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Further, the UK Supreme Court in November 2023 decided that Rwanda, at that time, did not qualify as a safe country.
Prof Theodore said there were diplomatic assurances provided by the Rwanda Safety Bill concerning the protection of asylum seekers including an appeal body consisting of judges from various countries.
For Professor Theodore, “it is unlikely” that various processes and systems can be implemented and tested before the spring or early summer which is when the government “wants to send people over there”.
Regarding the ECHR - which back in 2022 granted an urgent interim measure against the UK until the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of the Rwanda policy - Prof Theodore said the ECHR or Human Rights were “not a distraction”.
Prof Theodore said “sending someone to their peril or where they would face torture” triggers Article 3 of the ECHR which is the “absolute” protection for all against torture and inhuman treatment.
He said the prohibition provided by Article 3 ECHR against ill-treatment is equally absolute in relocation cases such as Rwanda, and added: “This is where you can say that the UK is not a legal island as it does not operate under only its own rules”.
“It also operates by commonly and or internationally agreed values based on the right to dignity and integrity of the person”.
Whether we should leave the ECHR, like the EU, Professor Theodore says is a “big political question”, but an area he is concerned about is our continuous adherence to international law and respect for the role of judges.
Professor Theodore said as the Rwanda Safety Bill stresses that the validity of future legislation on the matter is unaffected by international law including the ECHR, that this legislation was a way for the government to potentially leave the ECHR “in a piecemeal manner”.
When asked about the recent years of media coverage of judges and legal professionals – including the Daily Mail’s Enemy of the People front page, Theodore said: “I think attacking or excluding people for having a different view is not a healthy sign in a liberal democracy to be honest.
“In the context of Brexit and now Rwanda the debate can become easily polarised, but we need to consider the evidence we have in front of us to make informed arguments. Of course, this is not easy when the discussion is on complex foreign affairs matters.”
Theodore concluded: “We can perceive foreign affairs as something quite far away from us, leaving it to the government to negotiate and move things forward.
“But Rwanda or Brexit prove that foreign affairs can be quite intimate in the way we live our lives. The rights of our neighbours – the rights of migrants – and how the courts are allowed to respond to those rights - they are own rights really.”
To read the House of Lords final report visit here and to discover more the Constitutional and Administrative Justice Initiative (Essex CAJI) visit here.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here