The British government’s controversial Rwanda plan was taken to court on Monday, with lawyers on behalf of asylum seekers arguing that the British government ignored evidence that the Central African country violates human rights. 

On behalf of some of the asylum seekers, lawyer Raza Husain said the Rwanda policy was “unlawful under the Human Rights Act and the common law.”

Husain added: “Rwanda is a one-party authoritarian state that does not tolerate political opposition. It is a regime that repeatedly imprisons, tortures and murders those it thinks (are) its political opponents.

“Those who protest or dissent from government directives, including refugees, are faced with police violence. All of those observations are drawn from our own government officials.”

Speakers against the plan also said that the government “including the Foreign Office and No 10 (prime ministry) were themselves aware of, and appear to have had serious concerns, over Rwanda’s present and historic human rights record.”

A spokesperson for the Home Office said Rwanda is a “fundamentally safe and secure country, with a track record of supporting asylum seekers.”

The Rwanda plan would see asylum seekers crossing the English Channel in small boats deported to Rwanda, where their claims would be processed. It was suspended amid a slew of legal challenges.

Today was day one of the court hearing, which will last five days. In October, a separate hearing will take place, brought by the Asylum Aid charity. The decisions on both hearings will be released at the same time, local media reported.

Liz Truss, the newly elected leader of the Conservative Party who will become prime minister tomorrow, has already said she backs the plan.

AA