In a move that has raised concerns among legal experts, new legislation has been unveiled by the government in its bid to implement a migration plan involving Rwanda. However, this plan has sparked fears of a heated conflict with the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

Experts who have been involved in the Rwanda case or have supported challenges against the policy have expressed their apprehensions about the potential consequences of the new legislation. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Rwanda was not a safe country, citing significant flaws in its asylum system, supported by detailed evidence.

Addressing the defeat, the government's package seeks to declare Rwanda as "conclusively" safe, while simultaneously prohibiting British judges from making any contrary statements. This move aims to prevent the courts from considering documented evidence of injustices within Rwanda's asylum system. It effectively means that even in the hypothetical event of civil unrest like the 1994 civil war, British law would still state Rwanda as a safe country for sending individuals.

Furthermore, the legislation orders British judges and courts to disregard sections of the Human Rights Act that outline the interpretation of safeguards set out in the European Convention of Human Rights. This includes fundamental rights such as the prohibition of torture and the right to a fair trial. The legislation also prevents judges from considering other international laws, including the Refugee Convention and the United Nations' ban on torture.

Moreover, the legislation requires courts to overlook any other British laws that may impede the assessment of Rwanda's safety, despite the acknowledgment by the Supreme Court that such laws exist. However, the legislation includes a provision where individual migrants may still challenge the plan if they assert that Rwanda is not specifically safe for them based on their individual circumstances.

Experts have already identified flaws in the legislation, highlighting that it lacks the usual assurance of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, which every new legislation must carry. Government lawyers have reportedly warned ministers that the legislation is likely to face significant legal challenges and may crumble under sustained pressure.

If the bill is passed, legal experts anticipate a messy court battle, possibly leading to an unprecedented constitutional standoff between Parliament and judges. While the Supreme Court cannot strike down primary legislation, it holds the power to issue a "Declaration of Incompatibility," stating that an Act of Parliament should be reconsidered due to its conflict with the basic safeguards of the European Convention of Human Rights.

If the Supreme Court were to make such a declaration, claimants would likely seek to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. In this scenario, the court in Strasbourg would have to decide whether to block the plan and flights until the case is considered. However, the legislation includes a provision that allows ministers to disregard such an order and proceed with sending a plane to Rwanda.

Nevertheless, two significant obstacles stand in the government's way. Firstly, the plan must garner support in Parliament, and there is no guarantee that the House of Lords will comply. Secondly, legal challenges are expected to extensively delay the implementation of the plan, potentially running out of time before the approaching General Election.

This controversial emergency legislation, aimed at facilitating the government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, has been met with criticism. The former immigration minister argues that the legislation falls short, while the former home secretary calls for measures to block all legal challenges to ensure the smooth execution of the flights. With illegal migration into the UK becoming a pressing issue, the former home secretary urges her party to act swiftly, emphasizing that the time to address the matter is now.

Following a Supreme Court defeat, the government has recently signed a new migration treaty with Rwanda. Despite the new treaty, the passage of the legislation faces substantial hurdles, with legal obstacles and political opposition potentially derailing the plan.