FOREIGN Office officials warned ministers contemplating a policy to send some migrants to Rwanda that the government in Kigali used “torture and even killings” as a means of “enforcing control.” 

Despite the caution, three months ago, Home Secretary Priti Patel signed what she described as a “world-first” agreement with the East African country, worth around £120 million.

Under the terms of the deal, Rwanda is expected to receive migrants deemed by the UK to have arrived “illegally” and will then process their applications for asylum.

However, the first deportation flight never took off after it was grounded at the eleventh hour following an interim ruling from the European court of human rights.

A number of organisations, including the PCS union, Care4Calais, Detention Action and some asylum seekers have launched a legal challenge against the policy. 

A high court hearing is scheduled for September to determine its lawfulness.

Yesterday, ahead of the case, lawyers acting for Foreign Secretary Liz Truss asked for a review of conditions in Rwanda carried out by a Foreign Office official to be kept secret over fear the contents could damage international relations and threaten national security.

Neil Sheldon QC, for the department, told the court that there would be a “potential of very significant harm” to international relations and national security issues if the extracts from Country Policy and Information Note for Rwanda were disclosed.

In written submissions, Mr Sheldon said that the redacted material “comprises expressions of opinion, of a general nature”, adding: “The commentary it contains amounts to nothing more or less than the un-referenced opinion of this particular individual.”

A number of media organisations have made submissions to the court urging for their disclosure.

A draft ruling from Lord Justice Lewis is expected later this week,

Christopher Knight, representing some of the claimants, said the criticisms in information already published was “quite stark”

In written submissions, the barrister said that the Home Office has already provided “a significant array of evidence addressing the critical views advanced by the Government about the government of Rwanda”.

Mr Knight said it was important for the court to decide whether the redactions “go materially beyond or differ from the public criticisms made” about the Rwandan government by the UK.

In court, the barrister quoted from one of the documents written by the unnamed Foreign Office official, where they said: “There are state control, security, surveillance structures from the national level down to [households]. Political opposition is not tolerated and arbitrary detention, torture and even killings are accepted methods of enforcing control too.”

The claim for public interest immunity was supported by Foreign Office minister Graham Stuart.

In written evidence, Mr Stuart said that disclosing the full documents would cause serious harm “primarily but not exclusively” to the UK’s relationship with the Rwandan government.

He added that sharing the contents of the extracts would also harm national security “in light of Rwanda’s status as a valuable strategic partner to the United Kingdom across a range of issues including regional security, the maintenance of a strong coalition in support of Ukraine and combating the activities of criminal gangs engaged in illegal immigration”.

However, in written submissions, Mr Knight argued it was “implausible” for the redactions to contain anything that could harm national security related to supporting Ukraine.