Rwanda files legal complaint against UK for canceled migration deal News
geralt / Pixabay
Rwanda files legal complaint against UK for canceled migration deal

Rwanda announced on Tuesday that it filed a legal complaint in the Hague against the United Kingdom, due to unmet payments from a canceled migration treaty.

The Rwandan government filed a Notice of Arbitration in November 2025 to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, under Article 22 of the Treaty between the United Kingdom and Rwanda concerning the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP). It included three claims regarding the UK’s failed obligations. It firstly stated that the UK “breached an exchange of notes” by revealing the treaty’s financial arrangements publicly. It further pointed to a violation of Article 18 in honoring these financial arrangements, and of Article 19 by refusing to make arrangements to “resettle vulnerable refugees from Rwanda.”

The MEDP was established in April 2022, while Boris Johnson was UK prime minister. The agreement stated that people attempting to claim asylum in the UK would be sent to Rwanda to seek asylum there. The bill was motivated by political tensions over the vast majority of migrants arriving in small boats. In return, £370 million ($511 million) would be sent to Rwanda for development funding, with an additional £120 million ($165 million) once 300 people were confirmed relocated, and a specified amount per relocated person thereafter. It was upgraded to a formal, legally binding treaty in December 2023, with nearly half (£240m) of the payment completed.

Starmer announced in 2024 that the Rwanda plan was “dead and buried” and to be replaced by the Border Security Command, set to provide strategic leadership across different enforcement departments to “smash the criminal smuggling gangs making millions out of small boat crossings.”

Tensions over migrants have increased Europe in recent years, with France and UK forming alliances to crack down on illegal Channel crossings. The UK has been condemned for its stance on criminalizing illegal migrants, such as the Illegal Migrants Act, as well as receiving criticism for inefficient use of taxpayers’ money when housing asylum seekers.