On Wednesday, March 18, Britain and Rwanda clashed at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, with Kigali seeking more than £100 million it claims London owes it following the collapse of a contentious migrant deportation agreement.
Representing Rwanda, Justice Minister Emmanuel Ugirashebuja told the panel that his country regretted bringing the case but was left with no choice due to the United Kingdom’s “intransigence” in settling outstanding payments. He claimed that Rwanda had been deprived of substantial funds promised under the agreement.
The dispute revolves around a 2022 agreement brokered by former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, which aimed to relocate migrants arriving in Britain via irregular routes to Rwanda. The plan faced numerous legal challenges before being declared unlawful by the UK’s highest court.
After taking office in July 2024, Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared the policy “dead and buried,” while Home Secretary Yvette Cooper criticized it as a costly waste of public funds. According to official figures, only four people were sent to Rwanda as part of the scheme, and all of them volunteered.
According to UK data, approximately £290 million had already been paid to Rwanda before the agreement was terminated. However, Kigali argues that two additional annual payments of £50 million remain outstanding and insists that cancellation of the deal does not remove Britain’s obligation to honour previously agreed financial commitments.
Rwanda is also seeking an extra £6 million, claiming the UK breached a parallel agreement to host vulnerable refugees, many of whom were fleeing conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In addition to financial compensation, Kigali has asked the tribunal to order Britain to issue a formal apology.
In its legal submissions, Rwanda stated that it was “rightly aggrieved” by what it described as the UK’s decision to abandon its obligations based on shifting domestic political considerations.
Britain has rejected the claims, arguing that Rwanda’s case contains “obvious weaknesses” and suggesting that the legal action is politically motivated. London contends that Kigali’s move is linked to the UK’s decision to suspend most financial aid over allegations that Rwanda supports the M23 rebel group operating in eastern Congo.
The case unfolds against a backdrop of rising diplomatic tensions between the two countries. Legal teams for Rwanda presented their arguments on Wednesday, with the UK set to respond before both sides deliver final submissions later in the week. A ruling from the tribunal is expected to take several months.
Commenting on the proceedings, Phil Clark, a professor of international politics at SOAS University of London, said the timing of Rwanda’s case appeared deliberate, suggesting Kigali was seeking to reassert its strategic importance to international partners amid growing criticism over its role in the region.