The legal battle between Rwanda and the United Kingdom over the defunct Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) officially moved to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague today, Wednesday, March 18, 2026. At the heart of this three-day hearing is Rwanda’s claim for over £100 million (approximately Rwf 168 billion) in outstanding payments. Kigali argues that these funds were legally binding under the 2024 treaty, despite the British government’s decision to scrap the policy shortly after Prime Minister Keir Starmer took office in July 2024.
Rwanda’s legal team, led by Attorney General Dr. Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, presented a 37-page submission asserting that the UK’s unilateral termination of the “dead and buried” scheme did not absolve it of existing financial commitments. The dispute specifically centers on two scheduled payments of £50 million each, originally due in April 2025 and April 2026. Rwanda contends that “termination operates prospectively” and cannot retroactively erase obligations that accrued while the treaty was active, a stance aimed at upholding the sanctity of international bilateral agreements.
The United Kingdom has responded with a firm request for the tribunal to dismiss the claims, citing “obvious weaknesses” in Rwanda’s interpretation of the treaty. London’s defense hinges on the argument that the partnership was a “costly failure” and that the conditions for these multi-million-pound payments were never met, given that only four individuals were ever relocated under the scheme. British officials have characterized the pursuit of these funds as a “shocking waste of taxpayers’ money,” signaling a total breakdown in the diplomatic rapport that once characterized the “bold” partnership.
Beyond the £100 million in direct payments, Rwanda is also seeking an additional £6 million for an alleged breach of a reciprocal agreement. According to the filings, the UK failed to honor a commitment to resettle a portion of the “most vulnerable refugees” currently hosted in Rwanda. This specific claim adds a humanitarian dimension to the financial dispute, as Kigali accuses London of retreating from its broader promises of burden-sharing in the global migration crisis.
As the hearing continues through Friday, March 20, the international community is watching closely, as the ruling could set a significant precedent for how binding treaties are handled when domestic political leadership changes. For Rwanda, a victory would reinforce its position as a disciplined partner that expects its contractual rights to be respected. For the UK, a loss would result in a significant financial penalty and a reputational blow to its standing in international law.
