Rwanda Seeks $63 Million from UK Over Cancelled Asylum Deal
According to Reuters, Rwanda is asking Britain for a £50 million ($63.6 million) payment after the UK cancelled a controversial asylum deal.
The deal, signed under the previous Conservative government, would have paid Rwanda to take in migrants who illegally arrived in Britain.
However, when Prime Minister Keir Starmer took office in July, he scrapped the plan, calling it a waste of taxpayer money.
Reuters reports that the UK had already spent £700 million ($890 million) on the deal, even though only four migrants were sent to Rwanda under a voluntary scheme.
A British government spokesperson said no further payments would be made, and Rwanda had agreed to waive additional fees.
However, a source close to the Rwandan government told Reuters that Kigali is now demanding £50 million, citing broken trust and punitive actions by the UK.
Rwanda’s government spokesperson, Yolande Makolo, said the UK had asked Rwanda to drop the payment quietly but later imposed sanctions, including pausing some aid, over Rwanda’s alleged role in the conflict in neighboring Congo.
Rwanda denies supporting the M23 rebel group, which has taken control of parts of eastern Congo, including valuable mineral-rich areas.
The asylum deal had included plans for the UK to pay Rwanda £50 million in April 2024 and 2025. However, a break clause in the agreement allowed either side to cancel it with three months’ notice, meaning the UK would not owe further payments.
Reuters highlights that this dispute adds tension to UK-Rwanda relations, already strained by the Congo conflict and the failed asylum plan.
While the UK insists it won’t pay more, Rwanda argues it deserves compensation for the cancelled deal and the UK’s punitive measures.
In short, as Reuters explains, this situation shows the complexities of international agreements and the fallout when deals collapse.
Rwanda’s demand for payment reflects its frustration with the UK’s actions, while Britain stands firm on ending what it sees as a costly and ineffective policy.
Credit : Reuters