Rwanda, £50m and the Taliban: What’s Really Behind Farage’s Deportation Promise

Short answer: Rwanda says it’s open to reviving a UK deportation deal under a Farage government—but only if Britain settles an alleged £50m bill. The UK says it owes nothing. And the Taliban’s “ready and willing” line is reported, not independently verified, and would clash with current UK rules on paying them.

Now the twist: two governments say two opposite things about the same money, and the most controversial partner in Reform’s plan says it’ll take people back—but “aid, not money.” Here’s what checks out, what doesn’t, and what it would actually take to move a single plane.

The eye‑catcher: an unpaid £50m—owed or waived?

• Rwanda’s position: Kigali is “open” to a fresh deal but ties that to what it says is an outstanding ~£50m from the scrapped UK scheme. Reported by The Times and Reuters. The Times, Reuters
• The UK government’s line: No money is owed; “no further payments” will be made and Rwanda “has waived any additional payments.” Reported by the BBC. BBC

Both can’t be true. Until either side shows the paperwork—contract clause, side letter, invoice, waiver—this is a live dispute, not a settled fact.

What actually happened to the original Rwanda plan?

• True: The Johnson/Sunak-era deportation deal was signed in 2022; the first flight was stopped by a late ECHR intervention, and no deportation flights ever took off. Labour formally scrapped the policy in July 2024. Guardian, BBC
• Nuance: A handful of people reportedly went to Rwanda voluntarily; that does not contradict the “no deportation flights” claim. Reuters

What Reform UK is promising

• The pledge: Deport up to 600,000 asylum seekers in the first parliament under “Operation Restoring Justice,” with new third‑country deals (Rwanda cited as an option). Reuters, Evening Standard
• The money: A £10bn five‑year small-boats budget with up to £2bn for returns deals—figures from the party itself, not independently audited. Inkl/Independent

Note: The article’s phrase that Reform would strike deals “regardless of countries’ human rights records” is a characterisation. The party has named countries with serious rights concerns (Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran) and talked about disapplying some treaties, but we didn’t find a verbatim “regardless” quote. Euronews

The Taliban question: reported enthusiasm, real‑world roadblocks

• What’s reported: An unnamed senior Taliban official told the Telegraph they’re “ready and willing” to receive anyone the UK sends and “will not take money … but we welcome aid.” We couldn’t access the original; multiple outlets relay the same quotes. Treat as reported, not directly verified. The New Arab
• Reform’s money talk: Senior figure Zia Yusuf told BBC Radio 4 it could be “quite reasonable” for public money to go to the Taliban in a returns deal context. This clashes with the Taliban’s “aid not money” line and with UK policy. Inkl/Independent
• UK rules today: Britain says its Afghanistan aid is tightly monitored and not provided “to or through” the Taliban—only via UN/ICRC partners. Direct payments to the regime would break with that. Hansard, ICAI

The scale problem: who’s arriving—and who’s actually sent back

• Fact: Afghans were the largest small‑boat nationality last year—about 6,000 arrivals. GOV.UK
• Also true: Returns to Afghanistan have been effectively paused since the Taliban takeover; removals have collapsed to near zero—“a handful” at most. Migration Observatory, Free Movement
• Farage’s stance on risk: He said the fate of returnees “does” bother him, but “what really bothers me is what is happening on the streets of our country.” Sky News, PBS/AP

Where the parties stand now

• Downing Street (Labour): “Not taking anything off the table” on returns agreements, in principle. Evening Standard
• Conservatives: Could “potentially” strike a deal with Afghanistan, but warn it would be “very expensive” with “very significant” human‑rights implications; Rwanda might be a “better way.” Evening Standard

Verified, uncertain, and wrong‑way claims—at a glance

• Verified

  • Rwanda is open to a new deal—but says the UK must settle an alleged ~£50m first. The Times, Reuters
  • The UK says no money is owed; no further payments will be made. BBC
  • No Rwanda deportation flights took off; Labour scrapped the plan in July 2024. BBC
  • Reform’s 600,000 target and £2bn pot are party pledges, not independently verified budgets. Reuters
  • Afghans are the top small‑boat nationality (~6,000), and enforced returns to Afghanistan are near zero. GOV.UK, Migration Observatory

• Uncertain or disputed

  • The £50m “outstanding” vs “waived” payment—direct contradiction between Kigali and London; needs documentary proof.
  • Taliban “ready and willing” quote—widely reported but not directly verifiable by us; original Telegraph text is paywalled. The New Arab
  • Claim that “infinitesimal” numbers of Afghan arrivals served with UK forces—we couldn’t confirm that specific wording.

• Needs correction/clarification

  • The line that Reform would sign deals “regardless of human rights records” is a media characterisation, not a sourced verbatim pledge. Euronews

What it would take to make any of this real

• Paper before planes: A new Rwanda deal needs the two sides to resolve the £50m dispute—on paper. Without that, “open” isn’t actionable.
• Law and logistics: Mass removals require detention space, flights, receiving-country consent, and legal cover that survives court challenge. Reform also hints at changing treaty obligations; that raises years of litigation. Euronews
• Afghanistan reality check: The UK currently won’t channel funds through the Taliban. The Taliban says “aid yes, money no.” Meanwhile, removals to Afghanistan are close to zero. Those three facts, together, are the biggest practical barrier.

How we checked

We compared claims in the original article with primary reporting and official data: UK government statistics on small‑boat arrivals, ministerial statements on Afghanistan aid, and contemporaneous reporting from The Times, BBC, Reuters, and others. Where original quotes were behind paywalls (e.g., the Telegraph’s Taliban interview), we flagged them as “reported by” and linked to secondary outlets carrying identical wording.

The bottom line

• Rwanda could, in theory, revive a deal under Farage—but only after a hard cash argument is settled, and the UK says there’s nothing to pay.
• Talk of sending Afghans back collides with today’s rules and practice: near‑zero returns, no direct funding to the Taliban, and high legal risk.
• Reform’s numbers are political pledges. The crucial test is less about cheques and more about courts, treaties and whether any country will actually take the planes.