Rwanda agrees to take deportees from the US after migrant deal with UK collapsed
Ms Makolo did not provide a timeline for any deportees to arrive in Rwanda or say if they would arrive at once or in several batches. She said details were still being worked out.
The US sent 13 men it described as dangerous criminals who were in the US illegally to South Sudan and Eswatini in Africa last month and has said it is seeking more agreements with African nations. It said those deportees' home countries refused to take them back.
The US has also deported hundreds of Venezuelans and others to Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama under President Donald Trump's plans to expel people who he says entered the US illegally and are 'the worst of the worst'.
Rwanda attracted international attention and some outrage when it struck a deal in 2022 with the UK to accept migrants who had arrived in the UK to seek asylum.
Under that proposed deal, their claims would have been processed in Rwanda and, if successful, they would have stayed there.
The contentious agreement was criticised by rights groups and others as being unethical and unworkable and was ultimately scrapped when Britain's new Labour government took over.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that the deal was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe third country for migrants.
The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for the African countries it has entered into secretive deals with to take deportees. It sent eight men from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in early July after a US Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for their deportations.
They were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in Djibouti as the legal battle over their deportations played out.
South Sudan, which is tipping towards civil war, has declined to say where the men are being held or what their fate is.
The US also deported five men who are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini, where the government said they will be held in solitary confinement in prison for an undetermined period of time.
A human rights lawyer in Eswatini said the men are being denied access to legal representation there and has taken authorities to court. Eswatini is Africa's last absolute monarchy. The king rules over government and political parties are effectively banned.
Both South Sudan and Eswatini have declined to give details of their agreements with the US.
Rwanda, a country of some 15 million people, has long stood out on the continent for its recovery from a genocide that killed more than 800,000 people in 1994. It has promoted itself under long-time President Paul Kagame as an example of stability and development, but human rights groups allege there are also deadly crackdowns on any perceived dissent against Mr Kagame, who has been president for 25 years.
Government spokesperson Ms Makolo said the agreement with the US was Rwanda doing its part to help with international migration issues because 'our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation'.
'Those approved (for resettlement in Rwanda) will be provided with workforce training, healthcare and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade,' she said.
There were no details about whether Rwanda had received anything in return for taking the deportees.
Gonzaga Muganwa, a Rwandan political analyst, said 'appeasing President Trump pays'.
'This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a minute ago
- Telegraph
Six in 10 young people fear becoming victims of violent crime
Six in 10 young people fear they could become victims of violence in their communities, a new study has found. The poll of 1,338 adults aged 18 to 30 revealed that 61 per cent were concerned about violent crime where they lived, irrespective of their political allegiance. Sixty-seven per cent of both Labour and Reform UK voters said they feared becoming victims of violence in their areas. The Adam Smith Institute, which commissioned the research, said the findings were a 'wake-up call' about a 'generation that feels increasingly unsafe in their own homes'. Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that the number of violent offences reported to police has increased over the past decade, although the ONS says this is largely the result of better recording of crime by police. Knife crime has also risen since the Covid pandemic to near record levels, with younger people disproportionately more likely to be victims. The British crime survey, which measures people's actual experience of crime, shows that violence has steadily declined over the past decade by 36 per cent to some 1.1 million incidents of violence with or without injury. However, this has not changed young people's perception of violent crime as having increased. 'Violent crime, from knife attacks to robberies, is no longer seen as an isolated issue affecting certain parts of the country; it is a pervasive threat that cuts across ethnic and political lines,' said the Adam Smith Institute. 'For many, the perception that crime is rising and that public safety is deteriorating is only reinforced by the government's failure to tackle these issues effectively. When young people across the political spectrum agree on the same fear, it's clear that Britain's public safety crisis can no longer be ignored.' Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, said: 'Successive Labour and Conservative governments have run down our criminal justice system and left Britons to pay the price. We now live in a country where violent criminals and sex offenders receive shockingly short sentences, while ordinary citizens are prosecuted for social media posts. 'Only Reform UK will invest in our police force, enforce zero-tolerance policing and restore proper justice, where the punishment truly fits the crime.' Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: 'Young people often bear the brunt of some crime types, such as knife crime and phone snatches. Crime has gone up under Labour and Labour has cut police numbers, with more cuts coming this year. 'Labour won't properly back tactics like stop and search which are proven to make streets safer. And in London, Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan has completely lost control of crime, is presiding over crashing declines in police numbers and is shutting police stations. Labour is letting young people – and everyone – down on crime.' Emma Schubart, the data and insights manager at the Adam Smith Institute, said: 'Our findings should be a wake-up call for anyone still in denial about the state of public safety in the UK. 'When 61 per cent of young Britons, across all backgrounds and political affiliations, are genuinely afraid of violent crime in their communities, we have a serious problem. And the numbers don't lie: knife crime is soaring, robberies are up, and violent crime is no longer just an urban issue, it's everywhere. 'The fact that this crisis is being ignored or dismissed by politicians, particularly those who prefer to label concerned citizens as far-Right, only adds fuel to the fire. People are fed up. This is a generation living in fear, and it's time for the Government to stop playing political games and take action. Enough is enough.' A Home Office spokesman said: 'No one should live in fear of being a victim of violent crime. We are determined to make our streets safer, using every tool available to prevent harm and bring offenders to justice. 'We are investing in frontline policing, expanding Violence Reduction Units, and supporting early intervention programmes that steer young people away from crime. Through targeted enforcement and community-led prevention, we are working to build safer streets and protect communities across the UK. 'This will be further supported by an extra 13,000 neighbourhood officers across England and Wales by the end of this Parliament and providing the police with a £1.2 billion increase in funding this year.'
The Sun
a minute ago
- The Sun
Harry's response to charity row is typically him – blame others and then flounce off instead of trying to fix things
PRINCE Harry has flounced out – yet again. This time, not from the monarchy. Not from a podcast deal. Not from the Army, that many believe he quit too soon. 6 6 6 This time, from Sentebale – the worthy African children's charity he co-founded in memory of his mother, Princess Diana. Once a passion project. Now just another scorched bridge. The exit wasn't quiet or dignified. It followed an ugly row with the chair of trustees, Dr Sophie Chandauka, a punchy Zimbabwean-born lawyer and major donor. Several trustees stepped down, too. What followed was familiar: leaked emails, bullying allegations, duelling statements and headlines Harry tried — and failed — to control. Now comes the Charity Commission's verdict: No laws broken. But the rebuke was clear: governance failures, damaging behaviour and a serious lack of leadership. Harry insists he was forced out. That the chair was impossible to work with. That the environment had turned toxic. What else could he do? Harry always throws toys out of pram - latest charity move is childish But leadership isn't about walking away when the mood turns. In any serious institution — royalty, the boardroom or charity — you don't storm out. You stay in the room. You resolve the problem for the greater good. Instead, Harry bailed. Same old story. And like so many of his recent exits, this one fits the pattern. When pressure mounts and compromise is needed, he withdraws. Rather than engage, Harry flushed red and scarpered back to the luxury of Montecito, and Megs to mop his furrowed brow Robert It's a shame. Because Sentebale mattered. Founded in 2006, it provides long-term support to children in Lesotho and Botswana affected by HIV and poverty. It wasn't a vanity project. It was purposeful — touching the lives of 100,000 youngsters — and at one point, so was Harry. I travelled to Lesotho with him twice. I saw the work up close. Those children in need of help didn't see him as a prince. They saw someone who listened, who cared, somebody who came back. His presence wasn't performative. It was real. His royal rank and media profile opened doors. His conviction helped break stigma of HIV/AIDS, just as his late mother had done right at the outset of the fight. For years, he gave Sentebale visibility and momentum. It was, without question, his most meaningful contribution. But cracks appeared. His decision to quit royal life was costly. In 2023, Dr Chandauka initiated a financial review. She flagged a sharp drop in donations following Harry's withdrawal from royal duties; income fell to £2.39million in 2020, though later rebounded. She reportedly labelled his image a 'reputational risk' and raised questions about whether he was now more liability than asset. Rather than engage, Harry flushed red and scarpered back to the luxury of Montecito, and Megs to mop his furrowed brow. No formal rebuttal. No quiet diplomacy. No attempt to repair. He threw his toys out of the pram. He could have shown resolve, offered solutions, and strengthened the structure. Instead, he vanished. And that's what makes this so frustrating. Harry had no shortage of templates to help lead through turbulence. His grandfather, Prince Philip, oversaw the Duke of Edinburgh's Award for more than six decades — often in silence, always with rigour. His son Edward, the new Duke, is its leader. His father, King Charles, spent years building The Prince's Trust — now the King's Trust — from a niche programme into a national institution. 6 His sister-in-law, Catherine, champions important causes such as early years development with longevity, consistency and focus. His brother, William, leads Earthshot, a well-structured mission with financial backing. None of them walked out mid-crisis. They worked through it. Harry could have done the same. He could have stayed on the board in a non-executive role. Helped recruit new trustees. Brought in independent mediators. Stabilised the organisation rather than adding to the unrest. But that would have required discipline — and a willingness to listen. 'Squandered legacy' Instead, he defaulted to the same script: leave, blame, reposition. And this time, the people most affected weren't palace courtiers or out-of-pocket podcast executives. They were the children of Lesotho — many living with HIV, others orphaned, some still stigmatised. Those were the ones who stood to lose most. The pattern goes back further. His early exit from the Army — ten solid years of exemplary service, but he chose not to be a career soldier and go on, to rise further through the ranks and gain his braided uniforms on merit rather than royal birthright. His abrupt departure from working royal life. His mudslinging. His family ties frayed. Promises to reinvent himself in California have mostly yielded media spats, stalled projects and carefully lit documentaries. What's missing is institutional maturity. And staying power. This isn't about empathy or charisma; Harry has plenty of both. But he's never learned to sit with discomfort, to fix what's failing. Instead, he blames. Then bails. Since relocating to Montecito, his inner circle of advisers has narrowed. 6 He listens to American PR consultants and is guided, above all, by his Duchess, Meghan Markle — who built her brand around control and survival, not compromise or tradition. The problem is that leadership — particularly in the charitable sector — requires grit, continuity and people willing to challenge you, not flatter you. It's not that Dr Chandauka is beyond reproach. Under her tenure, annual accounts remain unpublished, and the next set is delayed until 2025. She may face valid questions. But here's the telling detail: the Commission didn't ask her to go. She stayed. Harry didn't. Now his team says Harry will support African kids 'in new ways.' In practice, that means nothing. His seat at the Sentebale table is empty. His voice, once essential, is absent. It's the institutional equivalent of ghosting. And this wasn't just another cause. This was personal. A living tribute to his mother. One of the few initiatives he helped build from the ground up. He could have pushed for reform. Brought in fresh trustees. Set a better standard. The options were there. What they didn't need was drama. What they couldn't survive was abandonment. This isn't scandal. It's waste. A squandered legacy. A cautionary tale. Another institution left to sweep up the debris of brand-driven burnout. The headlines will fade. The charity may recover. But something has shifted. The Harry I saw in Lesotho back in 2006 –- he had a purpose. A spark. A sense of something larger than himself. Now, all we're left with is another clean break, and another promise unkept. When Harry chose the name Sentebale, it meant forget-me-not — a tribute to Diana and her favourite flowers. It was a promise never to let her memory fade. Well, sadly, it looks like he's done just that. Robert Jobson is a royal editor and the No1 bestselling author of Catherine, The Princess of Wales – The Biography 6
The Herald Scotland
5 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Sarwar: Dewar would be disappointed at devolution progress
The Labour politician served as first minister from 1999 until his death in 2000, however he is often credited as being the architect of devolution. While Secretary of State for Scotland in Tony Blair's government, Mr Dewar began the devolution process. It resulted in Scotland's first parliament in almost 300 years. Mr Sarwar praised Mr Dewar, adding he was politician who 'believed politics was bigger than himself and bigger than his own party'. He also had to persuade the country – and many within his own party – of the importance of devolution, the Scottish Labour leader said. Mr Sarwar said: 'Donald had to do something that I think others hadn't had to do which is he had to first of all win a referendum to get the Parliament. Read more: 'He then had to build credibility for an institution and he had to persuade people on devolution. He didn't have to persuade just his own country, he had to persuade people in his own political party, in his own political movement. I also think he was a person of immense stature, and also someone that believed politics was bigger than himself and bigger than his own political party. 'He was genuinely a politician that wanted to pull people together. To be honest, and perhaps we will look back on this and think it was a naïve view he had given everything that's happened in the last two decades in particular, but I think Donald genuinely believed that once you've got a parliament together with different people in different parties, we would do politics differently from how we did it in Westminster, and that we'd find common ground and that's what drives us, rather than finding differences.' The Herald's editor Catherine Salmond asked the Scottish Labour leader whether Mr Dewar would be 'disappointed' at the Scottish Parliament's progress since it was re-established in 1999. The Scottish Parliament celebrated its 25th year in September last year. Mr Sarwar said: 'I think he would still be a believer of devolution. I think he would still be a defender of the institution but I think he would feel as if progress and story of devolution in 25 years has not lived up to the opportunity and potential that the Scottish people demanded.' The Scottish Labour leader warned there was a 'real risk' that Scotland's debate would 'suit people who want to live their lives constantly in a constitutional arguments mode'. He added: 'I think it's safe to say that we have to change the drive for leadership, the back stories, and also the level of engagement and intent for ministers in the Scottish Government. 'I too often see ministers looking like they're there to fill a space rather than to drive outcomes. We've got to get back to being an outcome driven country. We've got to get back to being a can-do country, not a can't-do country. 'I honestly believe our people are there I just think – people often say does Scotland lack ambition? Scotland doesn't lack ambition or imagination, they don't lack talent. They lack a leadership that shares that amount of imagination and ambition. 'I want to start with a government that meets the aspirations of the people of Scotland.'
