THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Rwanda’s legal team pushed back aggressively Thursday against the United Kingdom’s assertion that “simple common sense” frees the British government from paying millions of pounds tied to a stalled 2024 asylum agreement.
Arbitration proceedings initiated by Rwanda against the UK over the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) began Wednesday, March 18, at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague. Rwanda accuses the UK of failing to fulfill major financial commitments under the bilateral treaty.
The MEDP was originally designed to allow the UK to resettle some of its vulnerable refugees in Rwanda. However, key aspects of the program were never implemented before the UK’s new government declared the controversial agreement “dead and buried” last year.
The Core Dispute: A “Dead” Treaty That Was Never Terminated
Rwanda’s central argument hinges on a legal technicality with massive financial implications: despite publicly abandoning the plan, the UK never formally invoked the treaty’s termination provisions. Because the agreement technically remained in force, Rwanda asserts that the UK missed critical payment deadlines, including:
- A £50 million payment due in April 2025.
- A potential additional £50 million payment due in April 2026.
Presenting its defense on Thursday, the UK legal team—which includes high-ranking Home Office officials Tamsin Stubbing and Daniel Hobbs, alongside legal counsel—argued that it was a matter of “simple common sense” that further payments would not fall due once the program was effectively scrapped.
Rwanda’s Rebuttal: Political Calculation, Not Common Sense
Guglielmo Verdirame, a lawyer representing Rwanda, dismissed the UK’s defense. He argued that if a country has a unilateral right to terminate an agreement with a three-month notice period but actively chooses not to, it cannot claim the financial obligations simply vanished.
“With respect, this is not common sense at all,” Verdirame told the tribunal.
According to Rwanda’s legal counsel, the UK realized shortly after signing the binding partnership that it no longer suited its interests. However, rather than formally terminating the treaty, the British government engaged in lengthy, unsuccessful negotiations to amend it.
Verdirame suggested the UK’s failure to formally terminate the agreement was driven by domestic political maneuvering rather than administrative oversight.
“British ministers did not want a short stand-alone bill just dealing with the termination of the agreement, which could have been done very simply and very expeditiously,” Verdirame explained. “What they wanted instead was to deal with termination as part of a much larger piece of legislation on immigration.”
He added that avoiding a standalone termination bill helped the UK government sidestep domestic criticism, noting that “no politician these days wishes to be portrayed as soft on immigration.”
Final Submissions and Demands
Rwanda’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, delivered the nation’s final submissions, formally requesting the tribunal to:
- Declare the £50 million payment for year two remains legally due and payable.
- Find the UK in breach of its treaty obligations for failing to make the 2025 payment.
- Mandate a further £50 million payment for year three of the agreement.
- Order the parties to negotiate modalities for further compensation and appropriate relief.
