(UK, RWANDA) – The UK Supreme Court ruled in R (AAA and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42 that the government’s Rwanda asylum policy was unlawful, holding on 15 November 2023 that Rwanda was “not a safe third country” because of the risk of refoulement.

The judgment did not order Britain to pay Rwanda £100 million. It addressed whether removals to Rwanda would be lawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 3 ECHR, not whether compensation was due.

That distinction cuts directly across a claim that the UK would not have to pay Rwanda £100 million over the failed scheme. The Supreme Court case in the material before the court was about the legality of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, not a damages award or compensation order.

Judges in the case examined whether sending asylum seekers to Rwanda exposed them to a real risk that they could be returned to countries where they faced harm. The court concluded that risk existed and found Rwanda was not safe for the purpose the policy required.

The legal test turned on domestic and European human rights protections. Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, public authorities must act compatibly with Convention rights, and Article 3 ECHR bars torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Within that framework, the court’s question was narrow but decisive: whether removals to Rwanda would be lawful. It was not a dispute over whether Rwanda should receive money from the UK, and the judgment identified in the material does not support a court-ordered payment of £100 million.

Britain’s government later responded with new legislation and a treaty. It enacted the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which declared Rwanda safe for asylum purposes, and the Rwanda treaty was ratified on 25 April 2024.

That sequence matters because it shows the Supreme Court ruling and the later statute did different jobs. The court assessed the lawfulness of removals under the legal position before it in November 2023; Parliament later passed legislation aimed at changing the basis on which Rwanda would be treated in asylum cases.

The material also points to a separate problem with the £100 million figure. It says the headline about a payment to Rwanda is not supported by the cited Supreme Court judgment or the other material provided alongside it.

No part of the identified ruling shows a UK court ordering payment of £100 million to Rwanda. The figure may relate to a separate financial dispute or a later litigation claim, but it does not arise from the Supreme Court’s decision on the Rwanda asylum policy.

That leaves two issues that are often folded together but are legally distinct. One is whether the UK could lawfully remove asylum seekers to Rwanda; the other is whether any separate agreement, contract, arbitration claim or diplomatic settlement created financial liability.

The Supreme Court judgment identified here resolved the first issue. It did not resolve the second, and nothing in the material ties the court’s ruling to an order requiring Britain to transfer £100 million to Kigali.

The case name, the date of decision and the legal basis are all clear in the record cited. R (AAA and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42, decided on 15 November 2023, held that removals would be unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe third country due to the risk of refoulement.

Refoulement sat at the center of the court’s reasoning. The concern was that people removed to Rwanda could face a chain of events leading to return to places where they were at risk, bringing the policy into conflict with Article 3 ECHR and the obligations enforced through section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

That is why the judgment reads as a public law and human rights ruling rather than a commercial or compensation case. Courts deciding whether a minister acted lawfully under the Human Rights Act do not, by that fact alone, create a damages award for a foreign state.

The later enactment of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 did not retroactively convert the 2023 Supreme Court case into a money dispute. It marked a political and legislative response to the court’s finding, while the treaty ratified on 25 April 2024 formed part of that later effort.

Set out plainly, the chronology runs in one direction. The Supreme Court ruled the Rwanda policy unlawful on 15 November 2023; the government later enacted the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024; the Rwanda treaty was ratified on 25 April 2024.

None of those steps, as described in the material, includes a Supreme Court order for Britain to pay Rwanda £100 million. Any such figure belongs, if anywhere, to a different legal or diplomatic track than the one the UK Supreme Court decided.

The result is a narrower, more precise reading of what the court did. It blocked the removals by finding Rwanda unsafe under the legal tests before it; it did not hand Rwanda a £100 million award.