I have mixed feelings regarding Tuesday’s signing of the Rwanda-UK migrant treaty by our foreign minister, Vincent Biruta and the UK Home Secretary, James Cleverly. On one side, I am happy that the Rwanda-UK partnership, officially known as the 'Migration and Economic Development Partnership' (MEPD, is closer to being put into motion. However, on the other hand, the fact that we needed to even sign a treaty was, I feel, setback for us. Let us recall that judges at UK Supreme Court ruled the UK’s plans to fly illegal migrants to Rwanda “unlawful” because they judged that the migrants would be “unsafe” in Rwanda because of the risk of ‘refoulement’ (being sent back to the countries they had fled from in the first place). Rwanda is currently home to more than over 100,000 refugees. And while the majority of these refugees are from the region (DRC and Burundi), there are also refugees from as far afield as Afghanistan. These refugees are not kept in zoo-like, gazetted areas; rather, they are able to work, go to school and enjoy all the freedoms that other Rwandan residents enjoy. As a signatory to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Rwanda already had the legal obligation to ensure those seeking refuge would not be sent back to where they had initially fled from, and because of Rwanda’s own international refugee obligations, migrants from the UK were NEVER at risk of refoulement. Unfortunately, the supreme court judges, in my view erroneously, opined that although the UK and Rwanda signed a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) governing how exactly the migration partnership would work, Rwanda’s refugee system would be “unsafe” for the migrants from the UK because the MOU created no obligation on the part of Rwanda to ensure that they weren’t sent back to the places they had fled. This despite the fact that the issue of non-refoulement already existed in Rwandan law due to the fact that we had signed the Refugee Convention. This lack of trust, on the part of the UK judges is the reason a treaty was signed on Tuesday, December 5. This treaty, signed by the two ministers, addresses the judges' concerns that there might be refoulement, either by mistake or on purpose. Those sent to Rwanda from the UK will receive either refugee status or permanent residency. Either way, they will stay in Rwanda. Unless, of course, they choose to either go elsewhere (and the country they want to go to agrees to receive them) or go home instead. However, beyond my personal sentiments, as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling (and the subsequent need to sign a treaty, instead of good faith MOU), I am happy that the thousands of people who are either in migrant detention centers or living illegally in the UK, without access to healthcare and legal employment, will soon have a place to call “home”. I feel that the focus of the reporting on the partnership has been about the legal and bureaucratic red-tape that the partnership has created, and not the real lives impacted by illegal and unsafe migration. In June this year, while the world's attention was largely on the mini-submarine Titan, and the five men aboard it, at the same time, and in the same Atlantic Ocean, a ship filled with migrants was sinking off the West African coast, near the Spanish-controlled Canary Islands. Dozens died in that particular incident. That deadly incident occurred just two days after another ship, this time off the coast of Greece, capsized with around 750 on board. Hundreds died that day, joining the over 25,000 people who’ve lost their lives undertaking dangerous journeys to Europe over the last ten years. Now that the treaty is signed, is it too much to ask that our emphasis turns to supporting the vulnerable migrants in any way we can? Can the circus that had come to town, finally leave? The writer is a socio-political commentator
