A British court has ruled that the UK government’s plan to send “asylum-seekers” on a one-way trip to Rwanda is illegal.

In a split two-to-one ruling, on Thursday, three Court of Appeal Judges said Rwanda, one of the poorest countries in Africa, could not be considered “a safe third country” – where migrants could be sent.

Two of the three judges ruled that Rwanda was not safe because its asylum system had “serious deficiencies.”

They said asylum seekers “would face a real risk of being returned to their countries of origin,” where they could be mistreated.

But Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett – the most senior judge in England and Wales – disagreed with his two colleagues.

He said assurances given by the Rwandan government were enough to ensure the migrants would be safe.

In a partial victory for the government, the appeals court ruled that the UK’s international obligations did not rule out removing asylum-seekers to a safe third country.

The verdict was a blow to the Conservative administration’s pledge to stop migrants making risky journeys across the English Channel.

Although, the government is likely to challenge the ruling at the UK Supreme Court.

It had until July 6 to appeal against the verdict.

The judges claimed that a policy of deporting asylum seekers to another country wasn’t in itself illegal.

In 2022, more than 45,000 migrants arrived Britain and several of them died.

Both the UK and Rwandan governments agreed more than a year ago that some migrants would arrive in the British country.

They would arrive as stow-aways or in small boats and would be sent to Rwanda – where their asylum claims would be first processed.

Anyone granted asylum would stay in the East African country rather than return to Britain.

The UK government had then argued that the policy would smash the business model of criminal gangs that ferry migrants on hazardous journeys across one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

However, human rights groups kicked, saying it is immoral and inhumane to send people more than 6,400 kilometres to a country they don’t want to live in.

They argued that most Channel migrants are “desperate people” who have no authorised way to come to the UK.

The group specifically cited Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including allegations of torture and killings of government opponents in the country.

Despite this, Britain already paid Rwanda $170 million under the deal even when no one has yet been deported to the country.

Last year December, Britain’s High Court ruled that the policy is legal and doesn’t breach Britain’s obligations under the UN Refugee Convention or other international agreements.

It also rejected a lawsuit from several asylum-seekers, aid groups and a border officials’ union.

Though, the court allowed the claimants, who include asylum-seekers from Iraq, Iran and Syria facing deportation under the government plan, to challenge that decision on issues including whether the plan is “systemically unfair” and whether asylum-seekers would be safe in Rwanda.

Rwanda’s government already raised an eyebrow with the ruling, saying the nation is “one of the safest countries in the world.”

Yolande Makolo, the government spokeswoman, explained that everyone relocating to the country would benefit under the partnership.

“As a society, and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans.”

It is not clear how many people would be sent to Rwanda even if the plan is ultimately ruled legal.