Live screenshot of the presiding judge at the Permanent Court of Arbitration overseeing proceedings in the Rwanda v United Kingdom asylum seekers relocation case.
Kigali – UK officials shifted to applying pressure rather than negotiating substance in late 2024, Rwanda has told the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The government argues that no legally binding agreement was ever reached over the controversial asylum seekers relocation deal.
Live screenshot of Rwanda’s counsel presenting the government’s case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, challenging the UK’s claims of a binding agreement over the asylum seekers relocation deal.
The dispute stems from UK claims that a series of notes verbales and technical annexes constituted a binding agreement under which the UK would relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda. Rwanda says negotiations remained incomplete and technical, with draft notes exchanged in October never progressing to a finalized text ready for signature. Internal UK communications as late as October 30 acknowledged that “nothing had been agreed.”
Rwanda’s counsel compared the UK approach to “the strategy of a salesman who, having realized he’s not going to get the deal he wanted, just starts saying ‘please, please sign on the dotted line.’” The analogy highlights how UK officials allegedly tried to force agreement without resolving key issues.
Documents cited by the UK, including emails and WhatsApp messages, were dismissed by Rwanda as routine administrative correspondence with no legal effect. The February 25, 2025 Note Verbale, in which Rwanda stated that prior arrangements were “rescinded,” was also cited by the UK. Rwanda counters that the term “rescinded” does not imply a binding obligation and can apply to political, non-binding instruments.
Rwanda maintains that the November 2024 Note Verbale was political rather than legal. Any subsequent withdrawal reflects the flexibility of a political understanding, not a breach of international law. The government concluded that the UK’s case relies on unilateral assertions and informal communications, none of which demonstrate the mutual consent required for a binding agreement.
Rwanda Says UK Underestimates Refugee Costs in Arbitration Session
During the latest arbitration session between Rwanda and the United Kingdom, Rwanda’s legal counsel argued that the UK is underestimating the financial costs of hosting refugees.
Rwanda said the figures presented by the UK do not reflect actual expenses. The country’s request covers only a small percentage of refugees — an estimated 300 individuals intended for relocation in the first year of the agreement.
This number represents less than 1% of Rwanda’s total refugee population of 130,000. By comparison, other countries resettled far more refugees in 2024, including over 3,300 in the United States and 600 in Canada. The UK itself has resettled nearly 3,800 refugees under its resettlement scheme since March 2021.
Rwanda also provided cost estimates. Using figures from the 2024 finance note, it calculated an initial cost of £20,000 per individual, which brings the total for 300 refugees to £6 million. This is equivalent to 7% of UNHCR’s 2025 budget for Rwanda. Rwanda noted that this figure likely underestimates the real costs of housing and supporting the refugees.
The UK dismissed Rwanda’s numbers as speculative and did not offer alternative figures or methodology. Rwanda’s counsel expressed “surprise and regret” at the UK’s refusal to engage.
Counsel also highlighted that the commitment involved a “portion” of refugees, indicating a substantial, rather than symbolic, responsibility on the UK’s part.
The arbitration panel asked whether the UK would be willing to renegotiate arrangements to better reflect actual costs and responsibilities.
The court will resume proceedings tomorrow.
