Sunak’s idea of ‘safe’ is not to be trusted

If there is one word that Rishi Sunak and his ministers would like voters to think of when they hear the name “Rwanda”, there would seem to be little doubt that it is “safe”.

After all, the Prime Minister is set to bring back to Parliament this week his Rwanda bill, which among other tasks, seeks to decree by law that the UK’s partner for migrant deportations is – contrary to the view of the Supreme Court – a safe place to send those reaching these shores.

Just in case there was any lingering confusion about the Mr Sunak’s message, the legislation upon which he has arguably staked his premiership is called the Safety of Rwanda Bill.

All of which sits uncomfortably with i’s revelation that Rwanda is so “safe” that six of its citizens have had to be granted asylum in Britain since the Government signed its deportation deal with Kigali in 2022.

Related Article

Rwanda policy throws up an awkward question for Sunak and Cameron

Anne McElvoy

An awkward question for Sunak and Cameron

Read More

Asylum is only granted when an individual can show a “well-founded fear of persecution” in their country of origin for reasons that include race, religion or belief.

Downing Street now has to explain why Britain is offering protection to citizens from the very country that it claims can be trusted to offer a safe haven to those who state they too are fleeing persecution.

The appalling risks people are willing to take to seek asylum in the UK were underlined in the early hours of Sunday when the waters of the English Channel claimed five lives after a boat carrying dozens of migrants overturned off a French beach.

Of all the words and feelings that will have assailed those in their moments of terror, “safe” will not have been one of them.