Why Rwanda is bringing a legal challenge against the United Kingdom

The claim is that the United Kingdom failed to terminate the agreement in time

This week it was reported the government of Rwanda had brought proceedings against the United Kingdom for payments under the abandoned removals scheme.

My initial response to this news was that the likely basis of the claim was a badly drafted termination provision in the contract. Such bad drafting would not surprise anyone with a knowledge of government contracts, especially ones which are politically driven.

But, no.

The claim has been brought on the remarkable basis that the incoming Labour government failed to formally terminate the contract in time.

The formal notice of the claim is here.

The statement of the government of Rwanda is here and it says:

The Republic of Rwanda, on 24 November 2025, submitted a Notice of Arbitration to the Permanent Court of Arbitration under Article 22 of the Treaty between the United Kingdom and Rwanda concerning the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (“MEDP”).

This Notice commences arbitration proceedings against the United Kingdom.

Initiated at the request of the United Kingdom, the MEDP is a bold new approach to deter the dangerous migration journeys which are causing untold suffering, while also addressing the global imbalance of economic opportunity, which is one of the underlying causes of mass irregular migration.

The partnership between Rwanda and the United Kingdom reflects Rwanda’s commitment to protecting vulnerable people and builds on Rwanda’s track record of welcoming and hosting refugees and migrants from around the world.

The MEDP entered into force on 25 April 2024.

In July 2024, shortly after taking office, the UK Prime Minister announced that the MEDP was “dead and buried”.

He did so without prior notice to Rwanda, contrary to the spirit of the partnership that had always characterised the MEDP.

Later that day, Rwanda was informed that no future removals of individuals under the MEDP were scheduled or intended to be scheduled, and that the UK Government would consider the formal termination of the MEDP treaty in due course.

In November 2024, the United Kingdom requested that Rwanda forgo two payments of £50 million that were due in April 2025 and April 2026 and said it was doing so in anticipation of the formal termination of the treaty.

Rwanda indicated it was prepared to accept these arrangements should the treaty be terminated, provided that new financial terms would be negotiated and agreed.

Discussions between Rwanda and the United Kingdom did not however ultimately take place and the amounts remain due and payable under the treaty.

The United Kingdom, however, has made clear that it has no intention of making any further payment under the MEDP treaty.

It has also made clear that it has no intention of honouring its further commitment to make arrangements to resettle in the UK a portion of the most vulnerable refugees hosted in Rwanda.

Disappointingly, Rwanda’s attempts to move the UK from its entrenched position have been unsuccessful.

Shortly after filing its Response to Rwanda’s Notice of Arbitration, the UK notified Rwanda of the termination of the treaty.

In accordance with the treaty’s terms, this termination takes effect on 16 March 2026.

Rwanda sincerely regrets that the UK has decided to bring the partnership to an end.

In the arbitral proceedings Rwanda advances three claims: first, a claim that the United Kingdom has breached an exchange of notes setting out the treaty’s financial arrangements; second, a claim of breach of Article 18 of the treaty in respect of these financial arrangements; and third, a claim that the UK has breached Article 19 of the treaty by refusing to make arrangements to resettle vulnerable refugees from Rwanda.

Rwanda regrets that it has been necessary to pursue these claims in arbitration, but faced with the United Kingdom’s intransigence on these issues, it has been left with no other choice.

Rwanda remains committed to finding solutions to the global migration crisis, including providing safety, dignity and opportunity to refugees and migrants who come to our country.

*

This is extraordinary.

*

The United Kingdom-Rwanda partnership agreement is here.

You will see from Article 18 that the financial arrangements were not set out in the treaty. The government’s basis for not publishing the financial arrangements was that they were confidential.

Article 23(3) provides for early termination with a three month notice period.

However we know from the National Audit Office (NAO) report into the partnership (and they would have had access to the document setting out the financial arrangements) that if the partnership was terminated there would not be further payments - see the first bullet-point under 3.4.

We also know from that NAO report what the agreed financial arrangements were:

These figures tie in exactly with those in the Rwanda government press release.

If the Rwanda government statement is correct then, on the face of it, those amounts would be due and owing.

The only argument I can immediately see which the United Kingdom government could run is that the Supreme Court judgment against the scheme “paused” the partnership and thereby the payments.

Here the NAO report helpfully tells us that it was agreed:

If an order issued by a court of the UK or Rwanda prevents the lawful operation or implementation of the transfer arrangements, the period during which the transfer arrangements cannot be implemented lawfully would not count towards the five-year duration of the agreement.

This was buried in this footnote:

But it is less clear what would happen to the payment obligations where there is such a “pause”.

I will do a follow-up post when things are more clear - including any explanation from the United Kingdom government as to why it did not terminate the agreement in time.

After all, the Prime Minister said the scheme was “dead and buried”.