Amnesty International warned Wednesday that plans by five European Union governments for migrant return hubs in Rwanda and Uganda risk becoming what it called “cruel black holes for human rights”, two days before the governments meet to review progress on the plans.
In commenting on the human rights risks that these migrant return hubs pose and the potentially deplorable living conditions that they will be expected to endure, Eve Geddie, Director of the European Institutions Office of Amnesty International stated:
These negotiations, and the EU’s broader so-called ‘migration diplomacy’ approach, are based on deep power asymmetries reflecting an unabashed attempt by the EU to shirk its migration responsibilities and shift them on to countries in the Global South that are already doing far more than Europe to receive refugees and with fewer resources.
The warning comes as the EU Return Regulation, approved by the European Parliament in June but still awaiting final approval by the Council, is set to supply the legal basis for such hubs once it takes effect. Under the Regulation, the European Commission has said such arrangements can only be made with a third country “that respects international human rights standards and principles in accordance with international law, including the principle of non-refoulement.” The principle of non-refoulement, which is codified under Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, remains a fundamental principle of international law and prohibits nations from expelling refugees to a country where their life or freedom would be at stake.
In 2023, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom unanimously found substantial grounds to believe that asylum seekers transferred to Rwanda would face a real risk of refoulement, making the UK’s own Rwanda removal policy unlawful. The court’s reasoning also drew on Rwanda’s broader human rights record, including extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Uganda, meanwhile, criminalizes consensual same-sex conduct under its Anti-Homosexuality Act, which makes aggravated homosexuality a capital offense.
Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said in August that the discussions remained preliminary and that no agreement had been reached. A European Commission spokesperson said separately that the EU executive is “not involved in the discussions on the hubs.” The Uganda talks specifically are understood to be bilateral negotiations between the five states and Kampala.
Migration ministers from Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands are set to meet in Copenhagen on September 4 to review progress on the plans, which reports indicate could produce a Ugandan center accommodating up to 10,000 rejected asylum seekers by 2027. Amnesty raised similar alarm in March, when it criticized the European Parliament’s adoption of its negotiating position on the Return Regulation as punitive in nature.
Facts Only
* Amnesty International warned that plans by five European Union governments for migrant return hubs in Rwanda and Uganda risk becoming "cruel black holes for human rights."
* Eve Geddie, Director of the European Institutions Office of Amnesty International, commented on the human rights risks and living conditions posed by these hubs.
* The negotiations and EU migration diplomacy are based on power asymmetries reflecting an attempt by the EU to shift migration responsibilities to countries in the Global South.
* The EU Return Regulation sets the legal basis for such hubs, requiring third countries to respect international human rights standards and the principle of non-refoulement.
* The principle of non-refoulement is codified under Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
* The UK Supreme Court found substantial grounds to believe asylum seekers transferred to Rwanda would face a real risk of refoulement, deeming the UK’s policy unlawful based on Rwanda's human rights record.
* Rwanda has a broader human rights record, including extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
* Uganda criminalizes consensual same-sex conduct under its Anti-Homosexuality Act, making aggravated homosexuality a capital offense.
* Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo stated in August that discussions remained preliminary without agreement.
* A European Commission spokesperson stated the EU executive is "not involved in the discussions on the hubs."
* Migration ministers from Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, and the Netherlands are set to meet in Copenhagen on September 4 to review progress.
* Reports indicate potential for a Ugandan center to accommodate up to 10,000 rejected asylum seekers by 2027.
Executive Summary
Plans by five European Union governments to establish migrant return hubs in Rwanda and Uganda are warned by Amnesty International of risking becoming "cruel black holes for human rights." This warning was made just two days before the respective governments meet to review progress on these plans. Amnesty International, through Eve Geddie, Director of the European Institutions Office, commented on the human rights risks and potential living conditions associated with these hubs. The negotiations and the EU's broader "migration diplomacy" approach are framed by power asymmetries, suggesting an attempt by the EU to shift migration responsibilities onto countries in the Global South.
The legal framework for such hubs involves the EU Return Regulation, which allows for arrangements only with third countries that respect international human rights standards, including the principle of non-refoulement under the 1951 Refugee Convention. A key concern is whether these proposed arrangements violate this fundamental principle, particularly given the context of documented human rights issues in Rwanda and Uganda.
The article notes specific legal challenges; the UK Supreme Court found grounds to believe asylum seekers transferred to Rwanda would face a real risk of refoulement, linking the removal policy to Rwanda’s broader human rights record. Furthermore, concerns are raised regarding the human rights records of both nations, including the criminalization of same-sex conduct in Uganda. While the Rwandan government indicated discussions were preliminary and no agreement was reached, other reports indicate potential capacity for a Ugandan center to accommodate up to 10,000 rejected asylum seekers by 2027.
Full Take
The narrative frames migration policy not as a technical legal exercise but as an expression of systemic power imbalances where the EU attempts to externalize responsibility onto nations with fewer resources. The central tension lies between the stated commitment to international refugee law—specifically non-refoulement—and the proposed operationalization of policies in contexts where established human rights principles are demonstrably contested, such as Rwanda and Uganda.
The pattern observed is the strategic use of legal frameworks (like the Return Regulation) to create space for actions that risk violating foundational international obligations. The fact that the EU executive claims non-involvement while negotiations proceed suggests a separation between political intention and executive accountability, which can obscure responsibility when negative outcomes materialize. The simultaneous focus on Rwanda’s human rights record and Uganda’s domestic legal climate introduces a complexity: the hub model is not just an issue of displacement logistics but a mechanism where existing local vulnerabilities are amplified by external policy decisions.
The implication for human agency is that adherence to procedural compliance does not guarantee substantive protection when the underlying power dynamics favor state interests over individual rights. The shift in focus from legal review (like the Return Regulation) to on-the-ground projections of risk (like the capacity for relocation) suggests a deliberate attempt to manage public perception while operationalizing arrangements that place individuals in precarious, high-risk situations, effectively prioritizing geopolitical positioning over the principle of non-refoulement.
Bridge questions: If the principle of non-refoulement is technically codified but operationally ignored through such mechanisms, what specific enforcement or judicial mechanisms exist outside of established international bodies to halt these arrangements? How can accountability be structured when executive bodies claim neutrality while facilitating actions tied to documented human rights risks in host nations? What long-term structural shifts would be necessary to dismantle the power asymmetry that drives this "migration diplomacy"?
Sentinel — Human
The text functions as structured advocacy journalism, effectively linking proposed migration policies to existing international law and specific national contexts.