British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak opposes the Supreme Court's decision that the UK's Rwanda plan is illegal and vows to change the law in response.

The situation comes as the government is planning to send asylum seekers to the African country as part of efforts to curb illegal immigrants. Sunak's plan involves introducing emergency legislation confirming that Rwanda is safe.

Rishi Sunak Opposes Supreme Court on Rwanda Plan

This legislation was said to "provide a guarantee in law that those who are relocated from the UK to Rwanda will be protected against removal from Rwanda." Sunak on Wednesday said that it would also ensure that people would not be able to further delay flights by bringing systemic challenges in domestic courts.

The announcement of the legislation came after human rights groups celebrated the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the Rwanda plan. They argued that asylum seekers would be at "risk of ill-treatment" if they were sent back to their home countries once in the region, as per Aljazeera.

One hundred forty organizations, including prominent campaign groups such as the Runnymede Trust and Liberty, signed a joint civil society statement describing the UK's plan as "cruel and immoral." It added that they urged the British government to abandon it and protect the rights of people seeking sanctuary.

The founder of the UK-based Humans for Rights Network, Maddie Harris, said that the Supreme Court had made it "abundantly clear that Rwanda causes a serious risk to individuals in terms of refoulement to countries where they may face persecution or death."

Harris argued that the emergency law does not eliminate that specific risk to the involved people. She added that it meant that the UK does not care if they send people back to their deaths.

The development comes after the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the UK's Rwanda plan is unlawful. The court said that it found there were substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers who are sent to the African country could face ill-treatment, according to the Institute for Government.

Read Also: Suella Braverman Issues Scathing Letter to Rishi Sunak, Accuses PM of Betraying Promises

Asylum Seekers at Risk

Refoulement is prohibited by several international law instruments, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UN Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against Torture, and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

These instruments have been given effect in the United Kingdom national law by the Human Rights Act 1998, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002, and the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004.

The Supreme Court's decision was based on several factors and the justices drew attention to Rwanda's poor human rights record. This includes threats to Rwandans living in the UK, alongside extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, torture, and restrictions on media and political freedoms.

In criticizing the government's plan, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) provided evidence of systemic defects in the African region's asylum system, the potential lack of independence of the judiciary and lawmakers, and the 100% rejection rate for people from conflict zones, said the Human Rights Watch.

Related Article: Finland Blames Russia for Asylum Seeker Crisis