This chapter highlights the way in which Ekins and his co-authors in the Judicial Power Project market their publications politically as a backdrop to the debate over the Rwanda Bill. The chapter then describes the Supreme Court’s judgment that declared Rwanda ‘unsafe’ and how the subsequent Treaty between the UK and Rwanda plus the Bill, far from making Rwanda safe from the perspective of human rights law, rendered such law irrelevant. That makes it evident that Ekins and his coauthors were attempting to defend the indefensible. But what is really striking is that they wanted the Act to excise the few slivers of judicial review it preserved, thus giving the executive a completely free hand. The chapter also exposes the inconsistencies in their approach to international law in their different attempts to show that breaking international law is consistent with both the rule of law and international law itself.