Rwanda vs Britain court case began on March 18 at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, as Kigali seeks over £100 million it claims London still owes following the collapse of a controversial migrant deportation agreement.
The legal battle traces back to a 2022 arrangement under former UK prime minister Boris Johnson, designed to relocate migrants arriving in Britain via irregular routes to Rwanda. The plan faced intense legal opposition and was ultimately ruled unlawful by the UK’s highest court. Only four migrants were transferred under the scheme, all voluntarily, before the policy was terminated.
Speaking on behalf of Rwanda, Justice Minister Emmanuel Ugirashebuja said the country had reluctantly initiated the case after repeated attempts to resolve outstanding payments failed. He described Britain’s stance as “intransigent” and argued that Rwanda had been deprived of substantial funds it was promised. Kigali claims two further annual payments of £50 million remain unpaid. In addition, Rwanda seeks £6 million for what it says is Britain’s failure to honor a separate agreement to host vulnerable refugees, many fleeing conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The country is also requesting a formal apology from the UK.
The UK rejects Rwanda’s claims, calling them legally weak and politically motivated. London ties Kigali’s legal action to the suspension of most UK financial aid, citing allegations that Rwanda supports the M23 rebel group in eastern Congo. British officials emphasize that Prime Minister Keir Starmer ended the deportation scheme in July 2024, describing it as “dead and buried.” Home Secretary Yvette Cooper criticized the policy as a costly misuse of public funds. Official records show that the UK had already transferred approximately £290 million to Rwanda before canceling the agreement.
Rwanda argues that Britain abandoned its obligations for domestic political reasons, leaving the country “rightly aggrieved.” The dispute has added tension to diplomatic relations, raising questions about Britain’s credibility in international agreements. Phil Clark, professor of international politics at SOAS University of London, noted that Rwanda’s timing appears deliberate. He suggested that Kigali may be trying to reaffirm its strategic importance to international partners amid growing scrutiny over its role in regional conflicts.
Legal proceedings opened with Rwanda presenting its arguments on March 18. Britain is expected to respond later in the week, with both sides submitting final statements before the tribunal. Analysts predict a ruling could take several months, leaving the future of this high-profile dispute uncertain. The case is now being watched closely as a test of international agreements, financial obligations, and diplomatic strategy between two countries with a complicated history.
