The Rwanda relocation scheme ends in a mess

A lucky arbitration win for the UK brings the programme to its conclusion

There was recently an international arbitration award: a lucky arbitration award.

The lucky winner was the United Kingdom, the unlucky loser was Rwanda.

The dispute was about that relocation scheme for asylum seekers which the then-government of the United Kingdom sought to put in place before it was defeated at the last general election.

Over at Prospect (click here) I have done a piece on that scheme and how this arbitration ward finally brings the scheme to an end.

That piece emphasises the costs: in essence, it cost about £250,000,000 to send just four asylum seekers to Rwanda, and they went voluntarily.

The overall amount would have been even more, had it not been for the lucky arbitration victory in respect of unpaid fees under the agreement.

The point that can be added in this post is that the very fact this even went to arbitration is a bad sign.

The negotiations which brought the scheme to an end were, in a word, messy.

Flurries of diplomatic notes and correspondence - a bit similar to the classic “battle of the forms”.

There was no clear and shared understanding set out in a discrete document.

And one can see why Rwanda felt it had an arguable case for payment.

Adopting a wince like the eminent jurist Alan Hansen, the lawyering was atrocious.

The financial position should not have been left so uncertain that the dispute had to go to arbitration. The paperwork should have been so precise that neither side had any doubt as to the legal position.

Reading the narrative in the judgments of the exchanges one could imagine the result going the other way. The United Kingdom was lucky.

And it was fitting that the scheme ended in a mess - for it was always a mess. It was always inherent and misconceived and unpleasant to contemplate.