Kigali said late on Tuesday that it had filed an arbitration case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, arguing that Britain breached the financial terms of the deal after cancelling it in 2024 under Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government.
The asylum arrangement was negotiated before Starmer took office and formed a key part of Britain’s strategy to deter irregular migration. Under the deal, Rwanda was to be paid to take in migrants who had arrived in the UK without authorisation.
Rwanda’s government said in a statement posted on X that Britain requested in 2024 that Kigali forgo two payments of £50 million each, due in April 2025 and April 2026, in anticipation of the treaty’s termination.
“Discussions between Rwanda and the United Kingdom did not however ultimately take place and the amounts remain due and payable under the treaty,” the government said, adding that it had therefore submitted a formal notice to the The Hague-based arbitration body.
The Daily Mail reports that the legal dispute is understood to focus on the UK Government’s alleged failure to formally terminate the agreement in 2024.
The aborted scheme has already cost the UK taxpayer £715million, according to Home Office figures.
Why Western countries are turning to African states for migrant deals
The United States, under President Donald Trump, has renewed its hardline migration posture, with offshoring and third-country arrangements once again being discussed as tools to reduce pressure at the southern border.
Several European governments are also examining similar models, despite mounting legal challenges.
These agreements are typically backed by large financial packages, infrastructure commitments and broader economic cooperation, making them appealing to cash-strapped governments.
However, critics argue that outsourcing migration control to African countries shifts responsibility away from richer nations and exposes host countries to reputational and legal risks.
Rwanda’s decision to pursue arbitration against the UK highlights those risks and may prompt other African governments to demand clearer legal safeguards and stronger financial guarantees before entering into future migrant relocation agreements
