A common list of 'safe countries of origin'

The EU has introduced its first common list of “safe countries of origin.” The list includes Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco, and Tunisia. EU candidate countries, including those in the Western Balkans, are also generally presumed safe.

Under the new rules, asylum applications from individuals coming from these countries will be processed through an accelerated procedure. This is intended to enable faster decisions and quicker rejections of claims considered unfounded.

The burden of proof has also shifted. Instead of the EU demonstrating that a country is unsafe, the individual applicant must now prove they have a “well-founded fear of persecution” or face a risk of serious harm in their specific case.

A country may be removed from the list if it experiences armed conflict, if its citizens have an asylum recognition rate above 20%, or if it faces sanctions for human rights violations.

Changes to the 'safe third country' rule

The reforms expand the “safe third country” concept, which allows the EU to transfer asylum seekers to countries outside the bloc.

Previously, an applicant was generally required to have a connection to a third country, such as family ties or prior residence, before being transferred there. Under the new rules, this “connection” requirement has been removed. Individuals may now be sent to countries they have never entered, provided there is an agreement between the EU and that country.

This change allows for the possibility of processing asylum claims outside EU borders through arrangements sometimes described as “offshore processing” or “return hubs.” Similar models have been attempted by the United Kingdom and are currently used by Italy in Albania.

Transfers can only take place if the third country agrees to assess the asylum application on its merits and complies with international standards, including the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning a person to a country where they may face danger.

Scope and exemptions

The new framework is designed to reduce what authorities describe as “manifestly unfounded” applications and to ease pressure on member states’ asylum systems.

Unaccompanied minors are exempt from transfer to safe third countries unless they have a direct connection to that country or have transited through it.

Human rights organisations have raised concerns that the changes may disproportionately affect vulnerable groups, including LGBTQ+ individuals and survivors of violence, who may face challenges in proving their need for protection under accelerated procedures.

Political context

The reforms reflect what many observers describe as a “hardening” of EU migration policy . This shift follows years of rising anti-immigration sentiment and the growth of far-right political parties across several member states.

Supporters argue that the new rules will end “legal limbo” for migrants by delivering quicker decisions, address what they call “abuse” of the asylum system, and create a more “credible and functioning” framework based on shared responsibility among member states.

Concerns raised by critics

Humanitarian organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have warned of potential risks.

They cite concerns about possible human rights violations, particularly in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia, whose records have been widely scrutinised. Some Members of the European Parliament have also warned that third countries could use migration agreements to “blackmail” the EU in exchange for financial support.

Another concern relates to the removal of the “automatic suspensive effect” on appeals. Critics argue that this change could result in individuals being deported before a court determines whether their transfer was lawful.

The measures will take effect after formal approval by the Council. Most elements are scheduled to be implemented by June 2026, with some provisions, including the safe country lists, potentially coming into force earlier.

The MEDP includes a dispute-resolution clause that allows for arbitration. According to Rwanda, the dispute relates to the UK’s non-compliance with specific commitments under the treaty.

In June 2024, the UK and Rwanda exchanged diplomatic notes agreeing to two financial contributions of £50 million each, scheduled for April 2025 and April 2026. These payments were intended to support refugee hosting and economic integration in Rwanda. Rwanda asserts that the UK has failed to make these payments.

The agreement also included arrangements for the UK to resettle some of the most vulnerable refugees hosted in Rwanda. However, these arrangements were never finalised. 

Following the January 2024 election, the new UK government announced that the partnership would be discontinued. 

Rwanda argues that these announcements were made before the treaty's formal termination procedures were followed and that all obligations incurred while the treaty was active remain valid under international law.

Rwanda says it first attempted to resolve the issue through diplomatic engagement. When no agreement was reached, it proceeded to initiate arbitration, as provided by the treaty. 

The UK had originally proposed the MEDP as part of its strategy to manage irregular migration. The plan was consistent with Rwanda’s refugee policies and aligned with its cooperation with the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR).

Michael Butera, Chief Technical Advisor to Rwanda’s Minister of Justice, said: “Rwanda attempted at first to clarify positions and explore possible paths forward, indicating openness to discussion, including on the orderly conclusion of the partnership, provided that any arrangements were mutually agreed and legally consistent.” 

“As these discussions did not result in a shared understanding, we exercised the dispute-resolution option expressly provided in the treaty,” he told the New Times .

Regarding the expected outcome, Butera said: “Through arbitration, Rwanda seeks a legal determination of the parties’ respective rights and obligations under the treaty, in accordance with international law.” 

He affirmed that Rwanda remains committed to collaboration on migration, refugee protection and development, based on “respect for the rule of law, reciprocity between partners, and the orderly resolution of disputes through agreed legal frameworks.”

The MEDP was originally announced by the UK Government on April 14, 2022, under former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as a partnership with the Rwandan Government to process and resettle asylum seekers arriving in the UK without authorisation to the East African nation. The initiative aimed to curb illegal entry, especially via small boats across the English Channel.

It was subsequently renamed the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership. Through this agreement, individuals seeking asylum in the UK would be relocated to Rwanda before their asylum applications were considered.

However, in November 2023, the UK Supreme Court ruled the policy unlawful due to safety concerns in Rwanda. Following a change in government, the plan was officially cancelled in July 2024, after the passage of the Safety of Rwanda Act in April 2024. 

The government claims to have returned over 24,000 people without legal rights to stay since last July, but better weather and new tactics have increased crossings, and 73 people died attempting the journey in 2024.

"We condemn any form of abduction of those who seek asylum in our country," Nyeri said. "Kenya is a country that respects its obligations, and we call upon the government not to deport those seeking refuge. They should abide by international law that requires respect for the rights of asylum seekers," he told reporters. 

Besigye, a prominent Ugandan opposition figure and former ally of President Yoweri Museveni, was reportedly abducted in Nairobi over the weekend. His wife, Winnie Byanyima, who heads UNAIDS, disclosed on X (formerly Twitter) that Besigye was taken against his will in the Kenyan capital. 

His lawyer, Erias Lukwago, told AFP that Besigye is currently being held in military cells in Kampala and is expected to appear before a military court on November 20. 

"The latest information we have is Besigye is in military cells in Kampala, and the army plans to produce him in the General Court Martial today," Lukwago said. "We are yet to establish the charges against him. Besigye is no stranger to military courts on trumped-up charges, despite having retired from the army and now being a civilian." 

Besigye, who has contested Museveni’s presidency four times since 2001, has long been a target of Ugandan authorities. His attempts to unseat Museveni, one of Africa’s longest-serving leaders, have been met with a series of arrests and detentions. 

In recent months, Museveni’s government has intensified its crackdown on opposition figures, with prominent leaders arrested and opposition party members put on trial.

The KNCHR’s condemnation comes amid growing concern over Kenya’s compliance with its obligations under international refugee and human rights laws. By deporting individuals seeking asylum, Kenya risks violating international conventions that protect refugees from being returned to countries where they face persecution. 

Attendees expressed their hope for Venezuela’s future. Laura Bravo, a 49-year-old engineer, shared her optimism saying, "This has been very emotional for us because this is what we want for Venezuela – a new president to help us escape Maduro's dictatorship. We want a democratic regime that allows all Venezuelans, including those in exile, to return home with opportunities."

Marisa Robles, a teacher originally from La Victoria, the same town as González, expressed her surprise and joy at seeing him in Spain. "It was such a wonderful surprise. I'm really pleased to be here and support someone from my hometown," she told the AFP.

Meanwhile, small groups of protesters gathered in Venezuela, marking two months since the disputed election, with solidarity rallies taking place abroad, including in Spain.

The opposition continues to contest Maduro’s victory, which they argue was achieved through electoral manipulation, while international observers also remain skeptical of the result.

The Spanish government has refused to recognise Nicolas Maduro’s victory in the election, with Sánchez calling for the publication of the election results. He emphasised that Spain is working toward unity within the European Union to mediate the political crisis in Venezuela, the AFP reports.

“From a political point of view, the Spanish government has been clear since the elections were held: We have asked for the publication of the results (tally sheets of the July 28 Venezuelan elections, ed.), we have not recognised Nicolas Maduro's victory, and we are doing something very important: working for unity in the European Union,” Sánchez said, adding that Spain is committed to building bridges between the EU and China in a separate diplomatic matter.

Sanches further stated that “asylum is first and foremost a gesture of humanity, a civil humanitarian commitment of Spanish society and, by extension, of its government, to people who are unfortunately suffering persecution and repression. And this is what we have done with Edmundo Gonzalez (Venezuelan opposition candidate, ed)."

After arriving in Spain, Urrutia expressed hope for change in Venezuela, saying he left "so that things can change and we can build a new stage for Venezuela."

Rwanda has denied involvement in a grenade attack blamed on Burundi rebels. Tensions between the two countries are high as Burundi accuses Rwanda of supporting the rebels. Rwanda has called on Burundi to solve its internal problems and not associate Rwanda with the attack. "We call on Burundi to solve its own internal problems and not associate Rwanda with such despicable matters," government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said in a statement on May 12. The rebel group, RED-Tabara, denies responsibility for the attack. Relations between the two countries have deteriorated since early this year, with accusations and border closures, Africa News reports.

Migrant smuggles himself to avoid being sent to Rwanda

Pakistani asylum seeker Fawad smuggled himself from France to Dublin to avoid being sent to Rwanda by the UK government. He spent $8,000 on a dangerous journey through multiple countries and enlisted the help of people smugglers. More asylum seekers are choosing to go to Ireland instead of the UK due to the Rwanda plan. The Irish government plans to return migrants to the UK, although British ministers have said they will not accept them. According to reports , the UK Labour Party plans to scrap the Rwanda immigration policy if they come into power.

Neurological diseases

Medical professionals have called for more research into neurological diseases, like epilepsy, in Southern Rwanda, where they have long been linked to cysticercosis caused by tapeworm larvae. Limited research currently exists on its prevalence, but neurology specialists in Rwanda have reported encountering numerous epilepsy cases in the region, according to the New Times .

Northern Ireland blocks UK law to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda

A Belfast judge has blocked a UK law that would have allowed asylum-seekers to be deported to Rwanda, citing human rights concerns. According to High Court Justice Michael Humphreys, the Illegal Migration Act violates rights outlined in the Good Friday peace accord of 1998 and is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, AP News reports.

EU countries want to introduce Rwanda-style scheme

Nineteen EU countries want to introduce deportation schemes similar to the one in Rwanda. The UK's new law has already shown a deterrent effect. The EU is considering allowing member states to transfer migration procedures outside the bloc's territory, Daily Mail reports. The High Court in Belfast ruled that the immigration legislation underpinning the Rwanda scheme cannot be applied in Northern Ireland as it is subject to EU human rights rules. EU ministers are set to approve new migration policies after the European Parliament voted them through last month.

The East African country said in a statement that their acceptance is towards strengthening relations with the UK and addressing the global imbalance of economic opportunity.

But the bill which was passed narrowly by the House of Commons on January 17, 2024, has since faced delays with its passage into law pending approval of Britain’s House of Lords.

Both chambers of the UK’s parliament, the House of Lords and the House of Commons must agree to the wording of the bill before it can become law but this has not been possible because of disagreements with portions of the bill by the former.

Why the disagreement?

The upper and lower chambers have reached a stalemate over some amendments proposed by the upper house to the proposed Rwandan Asylum Bill.

While the House of Commons has okayed the bill and its contents, the House of Lords for the fourth time has rejected the bill and proposed some amendments.

These amendments include the exemption of Afghan nationals who had served in the British armed forces from being sent to Rwanda.

The argument put forward by Labour’s Lord Browne of Ladyton is that these people have assisted the UK military and have earned their stay in the country, a proposal which was backed by 247 votes to 195.

The second proposal for amendment focuses on the need for the UK to ensure extra safeguards are fulfilled by Rwanda. This will guarantee that the asylum seekers who will be sent to the country will be safe. This motion moved by independent Baron Hope of Craighead was backed by 245 to 208 votes.

What is next?

The House of Commons is expected to reject these proposals from their colleagues in the upper chamber. According to Reuters , legislators are expected to engage in the next stage of the process on April 22 or 23.

Meanwhile, the unelected upper chamber is expected to drop its proposals if the elected lower chamber keeps rejecting them.

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak hopes the new regulations will fulfill his vow to prohibit migrants from arriving in the UK unlawfully in small boats.