Rwanda has launched international arbitration proceedings against the United Kingdom, claiming London owes more than 130 million dollars following the collapse of their contentious asylum transfer agreement.

In a formal submission to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Kigali argues that Britain breached the terms of the migration partnership signed in 2022. The deal was designed to allow the UK to relocate certain asylum seekers and irregular migrants to Rwanda, where their claims would be processed and, if successful, they would be offered protection.

The arrangement, championed by the then Conservative government as a deterrent to small boat crossings across the English Channel, drew fierce criticism from human rights groups, opposition politicians and international bodies. Critics said it outsourced the UK’s asylum responsibilities and risked sending vulnerable people to a country they argued lacked sufficient safeguards.

Rwanda’s filing states that it invested heavily in accommodation, services and infrastructure to receive transferees, relying on British assurances that the scheme would proceed. Kigali maintains that it agreed to waive further payments only if the treaty was formally terminated and new financial terms were negotiated. According to Rwanda, those follow-up negotiations never occurred, leaving it out of pocket for commitments already made.

The UK is also accused of failing to honour a pledge to help resettle a group of particularly vulnerable refugees with complex needs who were already being hosted by Rwanda under separate arrangements. Kigali contends that this alleged failure underscores a wider pattern of Britain walking away from its obligations.

Before the scheme was abandoned, it became mired in legal challenges. The UK Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Rwanda could not be treated as a safe third country for the purposes of removing asylum seekers, finding a real risk that people sent there might be returned to places where they faced persecution. The court concluded that transfers under the plan would breach both domestic and international law.

Following that judgment, the new government in London moved to scrap the policy altogether, insisting it would pursue alternative approaches to managing irregular migration. Rwanda’s decision to seek arbitration now raises the prospect of a protracted legal and diplomatic dispute over who should bear the financial cost of a policy that never fully came into force.