The arbitration hearing between Rwanda and the United Kingdom over a suspended migration partnership has opened in The Hague, bringing into focus a high-stakes legal and diplomatic dispute centred on financial commitments, treaty interpretation, and the collapse of an asylum arrangement that was never fully implemented.
Proceedings are being held at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands, where Rwanda is seeking legal redress over what it describes as unmet obligations under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP), a bilateral agreement signed in 2024 but later halted following a change in the UK government.
The three-day hearing, running from March 18 to March 20, is expected to hear opening and closing submissions from both parties, with Rwanda presenting first, followed by the United Kingdom, and final replies scheduled for the last day.
At the centre of the case is Rwanda’s claim that the UK failed to honour commitments linked to the MEDP, including financial arrangements agreed through diplomatic notes in 2024. Kigali argues that the UK committed to supporting refugee hosting and economic integration through structured payments, but later backed away from implementation after announcing its intention to discontinue the scheme.
According to Rwanda, a binding exchange of diplomatic notes outlined financial support, including two payments of £50 million each scheduled for April 2025 and April 2026. Kigali says these commitments were not fulfilled.
Rwanda also argues that the UK government’s decision to abandon the agreement was communicated publicly before formal treaty termination procedures were completed, raising questions about compliance with international legal obligations.
The UK, however, has indicated that the policy direction changed after a new administration took office in 2024, with the migration scheme effectively discontinued before its full implementation.
Opening the proceedings, Rwanda’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, said Rwanda had acted in good faith throughout the partnership and only resorted to arbitration after repeated attempts to resolve outstanding issues failed.
“Rwanda regrets that it has been necessary to commence this arbitration. At all times, Rwanda has sought to perform its obligations under the MEDP in good faith,” he said.
He argued that the UK’s actions left Kigali with no alternative but to seek legal remedy, particularly regarding what Rwanda describes as unpaid financial obligations.
“The United Kingdom’s intransigence on these issues has left Rwanda with no choice but to vindicate its rights,” he added.
Ugirashebuja further noted that under international law, obligations accrued while a treaty is in force remain binding until properly terminated, a point Rwanda says is central to the tribunal’s interpretation.
He stated that formal termination procedures were not completed until later, and that the financial obligations agreed during the treaty’s active period remain enforceable.
Rwanda told the tribunal that it had already invested significant resources in preparing to implement the MEDP following its 2022 announcement.
These preparations reportedly included constitutional and legislative adjustments, the establishment of administrative structures to handle asylum processing, and the development of reception facilities for potential arrivals.
Kigali argues that these steps were taken in anticipation of implementation and resulted in substantial public expenditure.
The government also maintains that the partnership was designed as a mutual arrangement intended to support UK migration policy and to strengthen Rwanda’s refugee-hosting capacity and broader economic development goals.
Beyond financial questions, Rwanda also accuses the UK of failing to engage in planned discussions on refugee resettlement.
According to Kigali, a Joint Committee meeting was proposed in 2025 to finalise operational arrangements for the transfer and resettlement of eligible refugees. Still, the UK declined to proceed, citing its decision to end the agreement.
Rwanda argues that this refusal undermined the cooperative framework envisioned under the MEDP.
Rwanda maintains that it never agreed to waive its financial entitlements under the agreement and that any suggestion of relinquishing claims was not accepted.
The government says it rejected draft communications that implied consent to forgo payments, reinforcing its position that obligations remain valid.
Kigali is seeking compensation for what it describes as unpaid commitments, or a formal acknowledgment of responsibility through an apology.
Rwanda has also framed its claim within broader development objectives, arguing that funds under the agreement were intended to support inclusive economic growth, including the Economic Transformation and Integration Fund, designed to benefit both refugees and host communities.
While the case is technical, it carries wider implications for how migration partnerships are structured and enforced under international law.
It also highlights the legal complexities that arise when political changes affect the continuity of bilateral agreements, particularly those involving sensitive issues such as asylum and migration management.
The hearing continues in The Hague, where both parties are expected to present detailed legal arguments over the coming days before the tribunal considers its next steps.
