Information available to Taarifa indicates that British authorities deployed a specialised team shortly before the hearing at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague to conduct a coordinated intelligence-gathering operation linked to Rwanda’s case in the ongoing $134 million migrant deal dispute.

According to sources familiar with the matter, members of the team operated under the cover of a development agency, presenting themselves as consultants advising on how best the United Kingdom could designate development aid funds.

The cover is understood to have been linked to structures associated with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), formerly the Department for International Development (DFID).

In that capacity, they were able to access and engage a wide spectrum of actors, including media practitioners, politicians, civil society organisations and business leaders.

The intelligence gathered through these engagements was assessed by British officials as potentially useful in informing and strengthening their legal strategy, with the expectation that it could facilitate their defence in court.

“This is crude, and self inflicting,” our source said, adding that “after this case, the two countries will continue with their bilateral cooperation, regardless.”

Sources further allege that the move reflected internal concerns within British circles that their case was weak, politically driven and had been mishandled, prompting the use of covert methods in an attempt to gain leverage and exert pressure on Rwanda.

However, despite the breadth and sophistication of the operation, the material was not admissible under the tribunal’s evidentiary standards and could not be formally relied upon in the proceedings.

Sources also allege that the espionage operation was covert in nature and not formally sanctioned through established government legal channels, raising further questions about the methods employed and their compliance with standard legal and diplomatic procedures.

It is further understood that some of the statements or submissions presented in court may have been informed by lines of inquiry originating from questions posed by intelligence operatives during the information-gathering process.

The revelation introduces a significant new dimension to the dispute between Rwanda and the United Kingdom, which centres on financial obligations arising from the termination of their asylum partnership agreement.

Rwanda is seeking $134 million, maintaining that the UK remains bound by its commitments under a treaty that, in Kigali’s view, was never formally terminated.

The United Kingdom has rejected the claim and is seeking to have it dismissed, arguing that Rwanda’s position is driven by political considerations rather than legal merit.

In submissions before the tribunal, British legal adviser Tamsin Stubbing contended that the timing of Rwanda’s claim reflects dissatisfaction with sanctions imposed by London in February 2025 over the conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

Those measures included the suspension of direct aid, limitations on trade promotion and a reduction in diplomatic engagement.

UK lawyers argued that Rwanda’s decision to pursue arbitration coincided with these actions, suggesting that the dispute extends beyond the contractual framework of the agreement.

Rwanda, however, maintains that its case is grounded strictly in law. The agreement, initially concluded in 2021 and formalised in a binding treaty in 2023, was designed to enable the transfer of certain asylum seekers from the United Kingdom to Rwanda for processing and possible resettlement, supported by substantial financial commitments through an economic transformation fund.

While London disbursed initial payments, including $161 million at the commencement of the deal and further instalments in 2023 and 2024, Kigali argues that outstanding sums remain due.

Rwanda’s position is that, in the absence of a formally completed termination process, the United Kingdom’s financial obligations under the treaty continue to apply. Kigali also maintains that provisions relating to the resettlement of vulnerable refugees remain enforceable.

The United Kingdom, in contrast, argues that Rwanda acknowledged and accepted the termination process, thereby bringing both the financial and operational aspects of the agreement to an end.

Although the reported intelligence operation does not form part of the official record before the tribunal, it underscores the high stakes and geopolitical sensitivity surrounding the case.

The arbitration proceedings continue in The Hague, with the outcome expected to carry significant implications for both parties and for the broader legal and diplomatic framework governing international migration agreements.