Britain and Rwanda faced off at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on Wednesday, March 18, as Kigali seeks more than £100 million it says London still owes following the collapse of a controversial migrant deportation agreement.
Representing Rwanda, Justice Minister Emmanuel Ugirashebuja told the panel that his country regretted bringing the case but had been left with no alternative due to what he described as the United Kingdom’s “intransigence” in settling outstanding payments. He argued that Rwanda had been deprived of substantial funds agreed under the deal.
The dispute centres on a 2022 arrangement brokered under former UK prime minister Boris Johnson, which aimed to relocate migrants arriving in Britain via irregular routes to Rwanda. The plan faced sustained legal challenges and was ultimately ruled unlawful by the UK’s highest court.
After taking office in July 2024, Prime Minister Keir Starmer scrapped the policy, describing it as “dead and buried,” while Home Secretary Yvette Cooper criticised it as a costly misuse of public funds. Official figures show that only four individuals were sent to Rwanda under the scheme, all on a voluntary basis.
According to UK data, approximately £290 million had already been paid to Rwanda before the agreement was terminated. However, Kigali argues that two additional annual payments of £50 million remain outstanding and insists that cancellation of the deal does not remove Britain’s obligation to honour previously agreed financial commitments.
Rwanda is also seeking an extra £6 million, claiming the UK breached a parallel agreement to host vulnerable refugees, many of whom were fleeing conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In addition to financial compensation, Kigali has asked the tribunal to order Britain to issue a formal apology.
In its legal submissions, Rwanda stated that it was “rightly aggrieved” by what it described as the UK’s decision to abandon its obligations based on shifting domestic political considerations.
Britain has rejected the claims, arguing that Rwanda’s case contains “obvious weaknesses” and suggesting that the legal action is politically motivated. London contends that Kigali’s move is linked to the UK’s decision to suspend most financial aid over allegations that Rwanda supports the M23 rebel group operating in eastern Congo.
The case unfolds against a backdrop of rising diplomatic tensions between the two countries. Legal teams for Rwanda presented their arguments on Wednesday, with the UK set to respond before both sides deliver final submissions later in the week. A ruling from the tribunal is expected to take several months.
Commenting on the proceedings, Phil Clark, a professor of international politics at SOAS University of London, said the timing of Rwanda’s case appeared deliberate, suggesting Kigali was seeking to reassert its strategic importance to international partners amid growing criticism over its role in the region.