‘An open prison’: Refugees sent to Rwanda describe harrowing experience

A group of refugees, who were transferred from a British Indian Ocean Territory to Rwanda over a year ago, have described their experiences to the BBC, likening their situation to being in an “open prison.”

Isolation, insecurity in Rwanda

The controversial plan by the U.K. government to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has faced scrutiny from opposition parties. The BBC visited Rwanda to speak with four refugees who have been living there under a separate agreement. These refugees, originally from Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean, have expressed feelings of isolation and insecurity.

One refugee described Rwanda as an “open prison,” highlighting their struggles with complex medical needs resulting from past traumas such as rape and torture. These needs, they claim, are not being adequately met in Rwanda.

Living conditions, restrictions

The refugees receive $50 a week for food and essentials but are not permitted to work. They reported facing harassment and unwanted sexual advances on the streets. Fearful for their safety, they feel trapped, unable to venture outside their accommodations.

All four refugees are Sri Lankan Tamils who were moved to Rwanda following suicide attempts. They now live in two apartments on the outskirts of Kigali, with expenses covered by British authorities. Despite not having the same legal status as asylum seekers flown directly from the U.K., their experiences raise serious concerns about Rwanda’s ability to provide a haven for vulnerable refugees.

Health, safety concerns

Azhagu, a 23-year-old refugee diagnosed with severe PTSD, shared his struggle with inadequate medical care in Rwanda. He recounted being shouted at by local healthcare workers and threatened with detention after self-harming. Mayur, 26, who shares an apartment with Azhagu, has also given up on seeking medical counseling, citing poor medication availability.

Legal representatives for the refugees have emphasized that their clients have complex medical needs that are not being met in Rwanda. Despite inquiries, the military hospital where the Tamils were treated referred questions back to the Rwandan government.

Government response, refugee status

Rwandan official Doris Uwicyeza Picard defended the country’s healthcare system and downplayed the personal security concerns of the refugees. She noted that Rwanda has a thriving foreign population and suggested that the refugees’ concerns might not be widely shared.

Three of the refugees have had their international protection claims approved by the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) administration, effectively granting them refugee status. However, the U.K. has refused to accept them, maintaining that BIOT cannot serve as a backdoor to the U.K.

Calls for relocation, future prospects

The group has written to British officials requesting relocation while also expressing fear of leaving their apartments due to harassment. Lakshani, a 23-year-old woman, and her 47-year-old father Khartik have particularly struggled with security, facing multiple break-in attempts and harassment.

Despite acknowledging some positive interactions in Rwanda, the refugees feel that their traumatic experiences are being exacerbated. They have been offered the option to return to Diego Garcia until a safe third country can be found for resettlement.

The U.K.’s Foreign Office did not respond to the BBC’s inquiries about Rwanda being considered a permanent haven for the group. Picard reiterated that there is no similarity between the Tamils from Diego Garcia and other asylum seekers potentially coming from the U.K., emphasizing that Rwanda did not receive payment to accept the Diego Garcia refugees.

Political implications

Both the Conservative and Labour parties in the U.K. have pledged to reduce net migration ahead of the July 4 elections.

While U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made the Rwanda plan a key priority, arguing it will deter illegal Channel crossings, the Labour Party has criticized the plan as a costly and deceptive scheme.