The diplomatic bill that London does not want to pay
Rwanda has submitted its account. And it’s not small. This Wednesday, before a panel of arbitrators in The Hague, the African country demanded 100 million pounds (about $115 million) from the United Kingdom for a migration agreement that Prime Minister Keir Starmer canceled as soon as he came to power.
The pact, signed in 2022 by Rishi Sunak’s previous Conservative government, was simple in theory: London would send asylum seekers who arrived irregularly on its shores to Rwanda. In exchange, the African country would receive funds to cover costs.
But the reality was much more complicated.
An international divorce without prior notice
“The new prime minister declared the Rwanda plan dead and buried on his first full day in office,” Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, Rwanda’s justice minister, said during the hearing. And he added what appears to be the final straw: “The UK did not have the courtesy to inform Rwanda in advance.”
From London, the version is different. The British government alleges that both countries agreed last November that Rwanda would waive outstanding payments. A claim that Kigali strongly denies.
Ugirashebuja was direct: the United Kingdom “sought to escape its legal obligations.”
Researcher Joelle Grogan sums it up this way:
“Much of the arbitration is going to revolve around proof of that agreement.”
Meanwhile, in The Hague’s ornate Peace Palace, arbitrators hear arguments that could drag on for months before a decision.
The toxic legacy of the ‘Rwanda plan’
What is striking here is not only the amount claimed, but everything that was behind it. Yvette Cooper, who was Secretary of the Interior when the agreement was canceled, did not mince words:
He called it “the most outrageous waste of taxpayer money I have ever seen.”
Their calculations are devastating: 700 million pounds ($904 million) in public funds spent on a plan that never worked. Payments to Rwanda, rented planes that never took off, salaries for more than a thousand officials working on a program paralyzed by the courts.
Because there is another crucial detail: the British Supreme Court ruled that the initiative was illegal. They considered that Rwanda was not a “safe third country” for migrants.
Now, in addition to the money, Rwanda alleges another violation: London failed to fulfill its commitment to resettle vulnerable refugees from the African country.
What started as a quick political fix for Sunak has turned into a diplomatic and financial headache for Starmer. And as the arbitrators deliberate in the Netherlands, one thing is clear: some political bills take time to arrive, but when they do, they come with interest.
