International Court Dismisses Rwanda’s £100m Case Against UK Migration Deal

Key Points

• The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague dismissed all financial claims brought by Rwanda against the UK on Monday, June 1, 2026
• Rwanda’s claim for £100 million ($134 million) in compensation was thrown out, which bodes ill for other governments seeking to establish “return hubs” for migrant deportations
• The tribunal rejected two separate Rwandan claims, each seeking £50 million ($67 million), related to outstanding annual payments under the terminated Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP)
• The PCA ruled unanimously on the second £50 million claim and by majority on the first £50 million claim, dismissing both in a 76-page ruling dated May 15, 2026
• The court found that written diplomatic exchanges between the UK and Rwanda after Prime Minister Keir Starmer scrapped the deal amounted to an agreement that the UK would not make the two payments due in April 2025 and April 2026
• The UK government stated it “robustly defended its position” and the tribunal ruled in its favour on all grounds
• Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson sealed the original deal with Rwanda in 2022 to send migrants arriving via dangerous or illegal journeys to the East African nation
• The UK Supreme Court eventually ruled the scheme illegal, and it faced significant legal and political obstacles from the start
• When Keir Starmer became prime minister in July 2024, he declared the plan “dead and buried” on his first full day in office, calling it a “gimmick”
• Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, then interior minister, called it “the most shocking waste of taxpayers’ money I have ever seen”
• During the two years before the scheme was scrapped, only four people actually went to Rwanda, all voluntarily, according to the current UK government
• Approximately £290 million (€335 million) has already been paid to Rwanda under the deal, according to the UK government website
• Rwanda filed the Notice of Arbitration in November 2025 under Article 22 of the MEDP treaty
• Rwanda’s legal complaint included three claims regarding the UK’s failed obligations, including breaching an exchange of notes by revealing financial arrangements publicly
• The two nations are already at loggerheads after Britain slashed aid to Rwanda, accusing it of supporting M23 rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
• The decision is dated May 15, 2026, but was formally announced by the Hague-based panel on Monday, June 1

The Hague (Britain Today News) June 1, 2026 — An international arbitration tribunal has unequivocally rejected Rwanda’s claim for more than £100 million ($134 million) in compensation from the United Kingdom over the scrapped migrant deportation deal, ruling that London owes no further payments under the controversial asylum partnership.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration has decisively rejected Rwanda’s multimillion-dollar claim against the United Kingdom linked to a refugee resettlement deal that Prime Minister Keir Starmer scrapped immediately after taking office in 2024. The tribunal dismissed all financial demands put forth by Kigali, which contended that the UK should adhere to the terms of the contentious asylum arrangement that was annulled by London in 2024.

Judges from the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that Britain was not liable for two years of outstanding costs from the scheme that was shelved in 2024.

“The UK robustly defended its position and the tribunal has now ruled in favour of the UK on all grounds,”

a government spokesperson in London said, according to Euronews.

What Led to Rwanda’s Legal Challenge Against the UK?

The Rwandan government filed a Notice of Arbitration in November 2025 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). Rwanda initiated arbitration proceedings against the United Kingdom on January 30, 2026, according to the American Society of International Law.

The legal complaint included three distinct claims regarding the UK’s failed obligations under the treaty. Rwanda first stated that the UK

“breached an exchange of notes”

by revealing the treaty’s financial arrangements publicly. The complaint further pointed to a violation of Article 18 honoring these financial arrangements, and of Article 19 by refusing to make arrangements to

“resettle vulnerable refugees from Rwanda”.

Rwanda is seeking more than £100 million it says the United Kingdom still owes from a scrapped 2022 deal to deport migrants. Rwanda told a panel of international arbitrators in March 2026 that Britain still owes it 100 million pounds ($134 million) under the contentious refugee resettlement deal that Prime Minister Keir Starmer scrapped immediately after taking office in 2024.

How Did the Boris Johnson Government Create the Rwanda Deal?

In 2022, former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson sealed a deal with Kigali to send migrants arriving in Britain via “dangerous or illegal journeys” in small boats or lorries to Rwanda. The scheme was designed to deter irregular migration across the English Channel by establishing a “return hub” in East Africa where asylum seekers could be processed and resettled.

However, the scheme hit legal and political obstacles from the start, according to Euronews. The UK Supreme Court eventually ruled it illegal, citing concerns about Rwanda’s status as a safe country for asylum seekers. The legal challenges prevented any forced deportations from taking place under the original Johnson-era arrangement.

During the two years before the scheme was scrapped, only four people actually went to Rwanda, all voluntarily, according to the current UK government as reported by Euronews. This minimal operational impact became a focal point for Labour Party critics of the policy.

What Did Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper Say When Scrapping the Deal?

When Keir Starmer became prime minister in July 2024, he declared the plan “dead and buried” on his first full day in office, dismissing it as a “gimmick”. Starmer’s government moved swiftly to terminate the partnership, arguing it was both ineffective and wasteful of public funds.

Starmer’s home secretary at the time the deal was scrapped, Yvette Cooper, called it

“the most shocking waste of taxpayer money I have ever seen”.

Cooper’s sharp criticism reflected Labour’s broader assessment that the Conservative government’s flagship migration policy had failed to deliver results while consuming substantial public resources.

The UK government website shows that about £290 million (€335 million) has already been paid to Rwanda under the arrangement. Despite this substantial expenditure, the scheme achieved virtually no forced removals before its cancellation.

What Exactly Did the PCA Rule in Its 76-Page Decision?

The Permanent Court of Arbitration turned down two claims from Rwanda, each seeking 50 million pounds ($67 million), related to the financing of the terminated agreement. The decision was dated May 15, but formally announced by the Hague-based panel on Monday, June 1.

The panel also rejected two other Rwandan claims linked to alleged breaches by the UK of the pact. In its 76-page ruling, the panel said that written diplomatic exchanges between the two countries after Starmer scrapped the deal amounted to an agreement that the UK would not make the two 50 million-pound payments, due in April of 2025 and 2026, to cover costs of migrant relocations.

The PCA, set up in 1899 to settle contractual disputes between nations, rejected by majority the £50 million (€57 million) claim for one year and unanimously rejected the same amount for the second. This distinction between majority and unanimous decisions reflects the legal complexity surrounding the first payment period.

According to the British government statement,

“The U.K. robustly defended its position, and the tribunal has now ruled in favor of the U.K. on all grounds”.

The government spokesperson added:

“We are now focused on delivering vital reforms to restore order and control to our borders, including removing the incentives drawing illegal migrants to Britain and scaling up removals of those with no right to be here”.

Why Did Rwanda Argue the UK Still Owed Payment?

Kigali argues that despite the programme’s cancellation, Britain remains contractually obligated to pay £100 million, equivalent to about $125 million at current exchange rates. Rwanda’s legal position rested on the argument that the UK did not follow formal termination protocols under the MEDP treaty.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government declared the scheme “dead and buried” following their 2024 election victory—labelling it a waste of taxpayers’ money—Rwanda contends that the UK did not follow formal termination protocols. Consequently, Kigali sought approximately $68.9 million in outstanding payments that were scheduled for 2025 and 2026.

Rwanda said London still owed it more than £100 million (€115 million) from the scrapped deal to deport migrants. The Rwandan government maintained that two annual payments of £50m remained outstanding despite the scheme’s cancellation, as reported in pre-hearing submissions to the PCA.

What Does This Ruling Mean for Other Governments Seeking Return Hubs?

Rwanda’s $134m claim has been thrown out, which bodes ill for other governments seeking ‘return hubs’. The ruling sets a significant precedent for international migration partnerships, particularly for countries considering similar arrangements to outsource asylum processing and resettlement.

The decision undermines the contractual certainty that governments might expect when establishing third-country asylum partnerships. If the UK can terminate such an agreement without paying outstanding contractual obligations, other nations may face similar legal vulnerability when attempting to establish their own return hub arrangements.
Explore More about UK:
Passengers Beware: Gatwick Flights Facing Delays and Cancellations Today
London Housing Goals Stall as Just 7% of New Builds Start in Early 2026

How Do M23 Rebels and DRC Conflict Complicate UK-Rwanda Relations?

The two nations are already at loggerheads after Britain slashed aid to Rwanda, accusing it of supporting M23 rebels in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This diplomatic tension predates the arbitration case and reflects broader geopolitical tensions in Central Africa.

The UK’s decision to reduce aid to Rwanda stemmed from intelligence assessments suggesting Kigali’s involvement in supporting the M23 rebel group, which has been engaged in conflict with the DRC government. This dispute has complicated bilateral relations beyond the migration partnership, creating multiple points of friction between London and Kigali.

What Happened During the Arbitration Proceedings?

Justice Minister and Attorney General Emmanuel Ugirashebuja delivered the opening statement at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The case opened on Wednesday in March 2026 at the PCA, according to AllAfrica.

Rwanda began the inter-state arbitration proceedings under the asylum partnership agreement in November 2025, as reported by Al Jazeera. The arbitration represented a high-stakes legal battle over international contract law and migration policy, with both nations presenting extensive arguments about treaty interpretation and termination procedures.

What Financial Commitments Had the UK Already Made to Rwanda?

According to the UK government website, about £290 million (€335 million) has already been paid to Rwanda. This substantial financial commitment far exceeded the number of migrants actually relocated under the scheme, with only four voluntary departures recorded during the policy’s operational period.

The £290 million already paid represents the UKgovernment’s investment in building Rwanda’s asylum processing infrastructure, training personnel, and establishing the administrative framework for the partnership. Despite this investment, the scheme never achieved its primary objective of deterring irregular Channel crossings through forced deportations.

What Is the Permanent Court of Arbitration and Why Does It Matter?

The PCA was set up in 1899 to settle contractual disputes between nations. This historic international tribunal, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, has served as a mechanism for resolving disputes between states for over 125 years.

The PCA’s involvement in this case underscores the international legal character of the migration partnership agreement. By filing under the PCA’s jurisdiction, both the UK and Rwanda agreed to binding arbitration rather than pursuing litigation in national courts, reflecting the treaty’s international law framework.

What Are the Broader Implications for UK Migration Policy?

The UK government stated it is

“now focused on delivering vital reforms to restore order and control to our borders, including removing the incentives drawing illegal migrants to Britain and scaling up removals of those with no right to be here”.

The ruling removes a significant financial obstacle to the government’s broader migration control strategy.

The decision validates Prime Minister Starmer’s assessment that the Rwanda scheme was ineffective and wasteful. With no further financial liability to Rwanda, the Labour government can pursue alternative migration policies without the burden of potential compensation claims from the terminated partnership.

This ruling also signals that the UK government will vigorously defend its policy decisions in international arbitration, as demonstrated by the spokesperson’s statement that

“the UK robustly defended its position”.