Watch as UK government appeals for Rwanda deportation plan during Supreme Court hearing
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Watch as the UK government challenges a ruling that its plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful on Tuesday 10 October.
Lawyers representing migrants facing deportation to Rwanda have told the Supreme Court that the destination is an “authoritarian, one-party state” with a “woefully deficient” asylum system.
During the first of a three-day hearing over the case, Raza Husain KC, representing a number of asylum seekers, said Rwanda “imprisons, tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents”, adding that Home Office officials had “repeatedly recorded their concerns about it”.
Mr Husain said home secretary Suella Braverman “does not dispute the state of the Rwandan asylum system significantly… but rather seeks to ignore it”.
He added it was the government’s case that Rwanda’s assurances “change everything” and that the past is “of little relevance”, making reference to “evidence of large-scale abuse” under a similar previous agreement the country had with Israel.
Mr Husain said the government’s “extravagant claims” in its Supreme Court appeal “should be rejected”.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments