First Rwanda migrant from UK lies low while lavish tax-payer funded hotel remains empty

The Hope Hostel where migrants from the UK will be accommodated in Rwanda (Image: Getty)

The first migrant sent to Rwanda under a voluntary deportation scheme from the UK was nowhere to be found at the luxury Hope Hostel in Kigali, where he was expected to stay.

The hostel, renovated with £20million of UK taxpayers' money, is part of the UK's broader effort to house failed asylum seekers who agree to deportation or are subject to forced removals.

The migrant, who arrived last week, declined to speak with the media. He reportedly received £3,000 in public funds as part of the voluntary scheme.

However, when reporters from The Sun on Sunday visited the Hope Hostel, they found the facility's gates locked and no sign of the asylum seeker.

A security guard confirmed that the hostel was closed and currently empty. The reason for the migrant's absence remains unclear, but sources suggest he is "lying low" elsewhere in Rwanda.

Hope Hostel, originally constructed to house orphans from the 1994 genocide, was refurbished to accommodate migrants sent from the UK.

The four-story building has 50 double rooms with balconies and can house up to 100 people.

The grounds feature a floodlit football pitch, a basketball court, and communal areas with wide-screen televisions, providing various recreational activities for residents.

Despite the current emptiness, Rwandan locals believe the new arrivals will be warmly welcomed. The migrants are provided with a 17-page booklet outlining their rights and expectations during their stay.

The booklet states that they will be given "safe and clean accommodation, food, healthcare, and recreation." It also notes that "Rwanda is generally a safe country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers."

While UK ministers aim to send more migrants to Rwanda following recent raids, the fate of the programme's first arrival remains uncertain.

The empty hostel raises questions about the success and cost-effectiveness of the initiative, which has faced significant public scrutiny and legal challenges.