It comes as the PM comes under growing pressure from Suella Braverman and the Tory right to flout international law by “disapplying” the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Mr Sunak is reportedly weighing up some elements of the hardline plan proposed by Ms Braverman – whom he sacked earlier this week – to thwart fresh legal challenges to Rwanda flights.

The Tory leader is considering an emergency bill that would deem Rwanda a “safe country” and attempt to make clear that this designation overrides the Human Rights Act, according to The Times.

A less contentious option is to try to designate Rwanda a “safe” country without any attempt to override human rights law, with the two possibilities said to be part of “live” discussions.

Mr Sunak’s two-pronged strategy for dealing with the Supreme Court ruling against the government is to announce an emergency law that he says will enable parliament to “unequivocally” declare Rwanda a safe destination for asylum seekers.

The PM will also publish an upgraded agreement with the country which is expected to attempt to address the court’s concerns around “refoulement” – the potential for refugees rejected by Rwanda to be sent back to the country they are fleeing.

But Ms Braverman has insisted that Mr Sunak goes further – saying she “demands of the government an end to self-deception and spin”. She wrote: “Tinkering with a failed plan will not stop the boats.”

The ex-home secretary also said the UK’s domestic or international obligations – the Human Rights Act and ECHR – need to be made invalid using “notwithstanding clauses”.

Senior Tory MP Danny Kruger, co-founder of the increasingly influential New Conservatives group, backed Ms Braverman and demanded that Mr Sunak “change course or we will lose the general election”.

Writing in The Telegraph, the leading right-winger warned No 10 that failure to get the Rwanda flights going could lead to a “formal split” in the Conservatives and “splinter” the party forever.

“We need the Emergency Rwanda Bill to assert supremacy over all the laws and international treaties invoked by the Supreme Court,” Mr Kruger wrote. “This is existential. If we get this wrong, our party won’t just face rejection at the ballot box, but we risk splintering our coalition forever.”

He said Mr Sunak’s response to the Supreme Court ruling “makes me worry that they are not prepared to cut through the thicket of international and domestic laws and protocols that undermine parliament’s sovereignty”.

Some Conservative MPs are pushing Mr Sunak to consider going further than disapplying parts of the Human Rights Act by coming up with a “derogation” of the ECHR in a bid to set aside some of the international convention’s protections.

Tory MP Martin Vickers, a member of the Common Sense Group of right-wingers, told The Independent: “I would support any legislation necessary to deliver the policy.”

“I would be quite comfortable to override parts of the Human Rights Act, even though they [the government] will be looking at complications,” Mr Vickers said. “Another possibility is looking at the [ECHR] treaty option. I would be happy to go as far as possible.”

But Mr Sunak is facing concerns over the dilemma from both sides of his party, with the leading One Nation Tory moderate Damian Green stressing the importance of observing the rule of law.

“It’s not just all our own laws passed by parliament, and all international treaties that we have signed, that Suella wants to sweep away,” Mr Green told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday – before comparing Ms Braverman to dictators.

“Conservatives believe in a democratic country run by the rule of law. And dictators, Xi and Putin, would prefer to have the state completely untrammelled by any law. And so, as a democrat, I oppose it.”

Immigration minister Robert Jenrick reportedly backs elements of Ms Braverman’s Rwanda plan in a “belt and braces” push to get the flights to take off.

The Home Office minister had joined Ms Braverman in previously submitting proposals to No 10 which included four of the five points she outlined this week, according to The Telegraph.

Mr Sunak has denied “tinkering” with the Rwanda policy after Ms Braverman suggested his plan to save the scheme would fail without more radical measures.

Speaking to broadcasters on Friday, the PM insisted he would “work night and day” to ensure domestic courts cannot “systemically” block flights to the east African nation. Mr Sunak declined to say whether he would call a general election if the new law was blocked.

Meanwhile, Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court judge, told the BBC the plan to use a law to declare Rwanda as safe was “profoundly discreditable”, “constitutionally really quite extraordinary”, and would “effectively overrule” a decision by the UK’s highest court.

A government source said the treaty with Rwanda would be published “shortly”, but perhaps not as soon as Monday, as reports earlier suggested.

Jeremy Hunt backs Sunak's bid to save failed Rwanda deportation plan.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has backed Rishi Sunak's pursuit to save his Rwanda deportation plan without having to leave the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

The Prime Minister is coming under growing pressure from Suella Braverman and the Tory right to flaunt international law by "disapplying" the ECHR.

Mr Sunak is reportedly weighing up some elements of the hardline plan proposed by Ms Braverman - whom he sacked earlier this week - to thwart fresh legal challenges to Rwanda flights after the Supreme Court deemed the plan "unlawful".

The Tory leader is considering an emergency bill that would deem Rwanda a "safe country" and attempt to make clear that this designation overrides the Human Rights Act, according to The Times.

Asked if he is comfortable with plans to create new legislation to overrule the Supreme Court, Mr Hunt told Sky News: "Yes, that is our democratic right as members of parliament."

A less contentious option is to try to designate Rwanda a "safe" country without any attempt to override human rights law, with the two possibilities said to be part of "live" discussions.

“With Rishi Sunak we have the most persistent and most determined Prime Minister I have ever worked with,” the Chancellor later told BBC Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg.

“When it comes to solving fearsomely complex problems, I never worked with anyone as phenomenal as Rishi … when you interview me next year, we will be having a discussion about how we succeeded in this plan.”

Grilled on whether the government could leave the ECHR, Mr Hunt said: “We don’t believe at this stage that that is necessary … We don’t believe it will come to that, at this stage – we don’t want to do that.”

However, the Chancellor added that the government was determined to stop “foreign judges” deciding who comes to the UK.

“In the end our bottom line is clear – it is elected representatives in parliament that should make the decision.”

It comes after Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption warned that the Rwanda plan is "probably dead" in its current form.

Asked by Trevor Phillips on the presenter's Sunday show on Sky News whether the scheme is "dead", he replied: "I think the current Rwanda scheme is probably dead, but we obviously have to suspend judgment until we see what this legislation or this new treaty looks like."

He also suggested judges in Strasbourg would come to a similar view of the scheme's legality as UK Supreme Court justices.

He said: "The Government have made clear ... that they don't intend to do that (withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights). Although the Government may well ignore interim orders from Strasbourg, they presumably intend to comply with final orders from Strasbourg.

"It (the Strasbourg court) will investigate safety for itself and probably arrive at a conclusion very similar to that of the Supreme Court."

He also said he is "sceptical" of reported plans to send British civil servants to work in the east African country, adding: "The main problem (with the) scheme is that it outsources to Rwanda the decisionabout whether people have refugee status."

Suella Braverman confused over sacking after ‘agreement with No 10’ for police attack article.

Suella Braverman has described her sacking as a “bit odd” as she criticised Rishi Sunak for showing a “lack of moral leadership” over the past four weeks.

In her first interview since being asked to leave government, the former home secretary said Mr Sunak would have to “take responsibility for the consequences”, with her departure leading to a widening rift between the right and centre of the party.

She also spoke about her sacking last week, which came after she wrote an article for The Times accusing the police of “double standards” for giving the go-ahead for a pro-Palestine march on Armistice Day.

Speaking to the Mail on Sunday, she claimed Downing Street had agreed she should write the article, and had seen a draft. But as reported by The Independent, Mr Sunak’s official spokesperson claimed No 10 did not approve the final text.

“It was a bit odd because on the Wednesday we had agreement with No 10 that I should write an article for The Times. We had put a draft together and exchanged versions with the team at No 10 so I find it all very confusing,” Ms Braverman said.

“On the one hand they gave us permission and then the reason that he cited in the call was that he wasn’t happy with the op-ed [opinion article] in The Times.”

She revealed that the prime minister had phoned to sack her as she was making her way into parliament at breakfast time on Monday, and that he had informed her the op ed “wasn’t the right thing to do”.

Ms Braverman’s article sparked a furious outcry after she accused Scotland Yard of “playing favourites” over the Pro-Palestine rally. While Mr Sunak’s spokesperson at the time said he retained “full confidence” in her, they confirmed that No 10 did not approve the final text.

Ms Braverman doubled down on her attack on the Metropolitan Police in her interview – claiming a “soft touch was being taken towards pro-Palestinian marches” by Scotland Yard.

She also said Met chiefs “got it wrong” by failing to crack down on jihad chants. “I subsequently received legal advice from many senior lawyers who made it clear that chanting jihad in that particular context did constitute an arrestable offence. So, in my view they got it wrong.”

Calling for new laws, she said that the pro-Palestinian marches had been “threatening community cohesion and undermining British values”.

“There had been tepid and timid statements from the prime minister throughout the course of this issue and I felt there was a real opportunity for the prime minister to demonstrate some moral leadership,” she said. “I felt that was wholly lacking.”

Warning of a bleak electoral outlook if Mr Sunak failed to change direction, Ms Braverman also reiterated her calls for the UK to leave the “straitjacket” of human rights laws which have prevented the government’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda from succeeding in the Supreme Court.

Ms Braverman said she was “very glad” Mr Sunak had promised to bring in emergency legislation “But this needs to be meaningful change in the law and tweaking and finetuning is not going to cut it ... and we will not get flights off before the next general election,” she warned.

The ex-home secretary added: “We need to exclude elements of the Human Rights framework, whether that’s the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], the Human Rights Act or other international laws which have so far thwarted our ability to control our borders.”

The former cabinet minister also said that she has “got a copy” of a pact she alleges she signed with Mr Sunak in exchange for her support for him to become PM last October. But she said she was not releasing it – yet.

The day after being sacked, Ms Braverman launched a scathing attack on the prime minister, accusing him of breaking secret promises. She also stated that he had resorted to “wishful thinking” in approaching the Rwanda plan, and she had been repeatedly ignored.

After the publication of her letter, No 10 said it would not respond to individual accusations, but a spokesperson said: “The prime minister believes in actions not words ... And whatever the outcome of the Supreme Court, he will continue that work.”

Rishi Sunak deploys Whitehall officials to Rwanda as Tory revolt grows.

Rishi Sunak will station Home Office officials in Rwanda as he tries to see off an escalating Tory rebellion over his small boats policy, The Telegraph can reveal.

The decision to deploy UK officials to support the African nation’s asylum system will be seen as vindication for Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, who pressed for the move while in government.

It comes as Conservative MPs on the Right of the party warned the Prime Minister that he is facing electoral “catastrophe” – including the Tories being reduced to a “rump” of 60 seats – if he fails to tackle illegal migration.

One backbencher said they believed “dozens” of letters of no confidence in Mr Sunak had already been submitted to the 1922 Committee of Tory MPs.

The Prime Minister is expected to unveil a new treaty with Rwanda this week in response to the Supreme Court ruling that the scheme to deport illegal migrants to the country is unlawful.

‘As robust as possible’

A senior government source said preparations were underway to “step up Home Office people who will be doing training and assisting with case working in Rwanda, so that their system is as robust as possible”.

The source said that the Supreme Court’s ruling would also be addressed by a legally binding treaty commitment from Rwanda that it will not deport any migrants under the scheme to third countries, which was one of the chief concerns raised by the judges.

And they said the judges had not been able to take into account further progress in Rwanda’s asylum system that had been achieved since the legal action started.

Mr Sunak’s plan to block legal challenges to his Rwanda policy through a Bill declaring the country safe has been met with derision in some quarters. The former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption called it “discreditable” and suggested it was akin to saying “black is white”.

However, the government source said: “When people like Jonathan Sumption not unreasonably say Parliament can’t declare black to be white, what they’re not appreciating is that there’s actually been a year of additional work already with the government of Rwanda to improve their processes, that we are committed to going further than that, and that the treaty will itself fundamentally change the nature of the way people are looked after in Rwanda.”

A second government source pointed out that some Home Office officials were already on the ground in Rwanda working on the new treaty.

The new Home Secretary James Cleverly said ministers were “prepared” for the Supreme Court ruling.

“We have been working on a new treaty with Rwanda, which will be ratified without delay,” he said. “It will guarantee in law that those who are relocated from the UK to Rwanda will be protected against removal from Rwanda.”

‘Deterrent effect’

The Home Secretary said that illegal migration was “immoral” as well as “unfair”, and claimed the Rwanda scheme was not a waste of time or money because it is already having a deterrent effect on would-be migrants.

However, Mr Sunak is facing mounting criticism from Tory MPs that his policy does not go far enough.

Critics want Mr Sunak to toughen his Bill through the insertion of “notwithstanding” clauses that would disapply the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements – an approach advocated by Mrs Braverman.

The immigration minister Robert Jenrick has met with concerned MPs and is understood to be pushing for a more expansive approach to the Bill.

The veteran MP Sir Bill Cash said: “If you don’t deal with the problems of the judgment comprehensively and use clear and unambiguous language in the emergency legislation, then we are going to be drawn into another problem with the courts.”

If the Government does not voluntarily strengthen the legislation it is believed that upwards of 40 MPs could rebel.

A Tory MP said: “If they bring forward legislation which doesn’t pass muster, like-minded people will try to amend it to make it stronger… I don’t think they comprehend the gravity of the disillusionment.”

The Prime Minister’s response to the Supreme Court defeat has increased the rancour in the parliamentary party, with some MPs suggesting that Mr Sunak could even face a leadership challenge.

A former cabinet minister said: “The response some people are giving is that we are facing a catastrophe and how much worse can it be?

“People are weighing up whether changing our leader could make things any worse than it currently is.”

An MP on the Right of the party said: “Anybody who has a brain knows that he cannot remain in place.”

They said Mr Sunak was “Theresa May in trousers” and that he would take the party to a “rump” of “60 seats, 70 if we’re lucky”.

Another MP said they “wouldn’t be surprised if there were another challenge”, while a third said: “I think it’s worth the chance.”

‘Running out of time’

In an interview with the Mail on Sunday, Mrs Braverman warned Mr Sunak that he was “running out of time” to deliver on stopping the boats ahead of the election.

Accusing him of blocking her from introducing emergency legislation for several months, she said: “I’m very glad he changed his view in the last few days but this needs to be meaningful change in the law and tweaking and fine-tuning is not going to cut it.”

She also suggested the Prime Minister had shown a “lack of moral leadership” in response to pro-Palestinian protests and called for a change in the law to criminalise chants such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.

In a column for The Telegraph last week, Mrs Braverman said that to get flights off the ground Mr Sunak had to amend the Rwanda agreement to address the Supreme Court’s concerns about the country, including by “embedding UK observers and independent reviewers of asylum decisions”.