alarm that magma may be nearing the surface nearby. the recent earthquakes are beyond what anyone is used to. the wrench of having to leave your home — beyond words. jessica parker, bbc news, in grindavik. time for a look at the weather. here's sarah keith—lucas. not for suella braverman, the adage that "revenge is a dish best served cold". she delivers a blistering attack on rishi sunak — politically and personally — and accuses him of never having any intention of keeping his promises. suella braverman�*s incendiary attack sounds like a rallying call for the right of the party, so how politically dangerous is she for the prime minister? we'll be speaking to the tory mp martin vickers. and ahead of tomorrow's supreme court ruling on the government's rwanda policy, we'll be joined by diana johnson, the labour chair of the home affairs select committee. also tonight... in a major investigation, we have, for the first time, established an apparent financial link between the russian oligarch roman abramovich and vladimir putin, after years of abramovich denials. it is new material which justifies those uk and eu sanctions and raises the question of whether the united states should follow. and the white house says it now has its own evidence hamas has been using gaza's al—shifa hospital as a military hq. we ask an adviser to israel's prime minister about the assault on the compound, which has become a lighting rod for the debate on a ceasefire. good evening. suella braverman was never going to go quietly, but her three—page letter reads like a comprehensive, coldly—furious takedown of the prime minister. she reminded rishi sunak that her support had been pivotal to his victory, after he had been rejected by a majority of party members during the summer leadership contest, and accused him of never having had any intention of keeping his promises he'd made to her, particularly on migration. she accuses him of equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest, and is scathing about his handling of the rwanda legislation, which she believes will hole her plans for deportation below the waterline, whichever way the supreme court ruling goes tomorrow. that crucial ruling is due in about 11 hours from now. nick's here. tell me about that letter from suella braverman today. well, this is no less than a full—frontal assault on rishi sunak�*s personality and failings as prime minister. you have to go all the way back to 1990 and that electrifying resignation speech by geoffrey howe after he felt margaret thatcher had made his position in cabinet absolutely impossible. this is what the late deputy prime minister had to say. it the late deputy prime minister had to sa . , . ~ the late deputy prime minister had to sa . , ., ~ , to say. it is rather like sending our to say. it is rather like sending your opening _ to say. it is rather like sending your opening batsmen - to say. it is rather like sending your opening batsmen to - to say. it is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the l to say. it is rather like sending - your opening batsmen to the crease, only for— your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find the moment the first balls_ only for them to find the moment the first balls are bowled that their bats have been broken before the game _ bats have been broken before the game by— bats have been broken before the game by the team captain. we bats have been broken before the game by the team captain. we are not in that territory — game by the team captain. we are not in that territory now, _ game by the team captain. we are not in that territory now, but _ game by the team captain. we are not in that territory now, but suella - in that territory now, but suella braverman is on the warpath and she is providing ammunition to the prime minister's critics.— minister's critics. there was so much that _ minister's critics. there was so much that letter _ minister's critics. there was so much that letter it _ minister's critics. there was so much that letter it had - minister's critics. there was so much that letter it had big - minister's critics. there was so much that letter it had big red| minister's critics. there was so - much that letter it had big red pens all over it, take us through it. highly personal attack on the integrity of rishi sunak and his policy failings. so on rishi sunak�*s personality, suella braverman says he can't be trusted. that is because he allegedly broke a deal they had which prompted her to support his bid for number 10. that deal, she said, covered reducing legal migration, excluding the echr from disrupting their plans to stop the small boats, and introducing "unequivocal statutory guidance" to schools to protect biological sex. suella braverman says none of that happened, and just look at what she says. "you have manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver on every single one of these key policies. either your distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so or, as i must surely conclude now, you never had any intention of keeping your promises." it must be one of the strongest ever attacks in a letter like that, so thatis attacks in a letter like that, so that is the personal side, but drill down into policy. yes, an attack on two core areas — a failure to deal properly with small boats and a failure to crack down on antisemitism and extremism. so, on small boats, suella braverman says the prime minister is guilty of a double failure — failure to prepare for a loss in the supreme court tomorrow and failure to prepare for a win. the court will be ruling in the morning on the government's plan to send illegal migrants to rwanda. and this is what she said. "you opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. this irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position." and finally, suella braverman accuses the prime minister of failing to attack anti—semitism and extremism. she accused him of resisting her calls to introduce new legislation to ban what she calls the "hate marches" that have been held since the hamas massacre on october 7th. again, this is what she wrote. "as on so many other issues, you sought to put off tough decisions in order to minimise political risk to yourself. in doing so, you have increased the very real risk these marches present to everyone else." so, a really big moment. downing street have completely lost patience with suella braverman. but conservative mps on the right to night, hearing from people in the home office who might not be on the side of suella braverman, saying, she has got this one right.- she has got this one right. queue very much. _ she has got this one right. queue very much, nick. _ she has got this one right. queue very much, nick. -- _ she has got this one right. queue very much, nick. -- thank- she has got this one right. queue very much, nick. -- thank you i she has got this one right. queue i very much, nick. -- thank you very very much, nick. —— thank you very much. well, tomorrow's ruling by the supreme court will certainly not be the end of the story. new home secretary james cleverley has made it clear that he too wants to stop the boats. it's also one of the prime minister's five pledges. one of the most contentious elements of the law alluded to by suella braverman is rule 39 of the european convention on human rights. here's sima with all the details around tomorrow's judgement and the potential next steps. tonight, five supreme courtjudges are the only ones who are likely to know which way tomorrow's much—awaited judgment will go. the supreme court is the final court of appeal in the uk and is set to deliver a decision on whether the government can send asylum seekers to rwanda. this ruling comes afterjudges at the court of appeal injune ruled that the plan was unlawful and could breach article 3 of the european convention of human rights, which prohibits torture and inhumane treatment. the prime minister has made stopping the boats a central part of his immigration policy. rwanda, he and his ministers argue, will deter people from making the dangerous journey across the channel. in recent years, many people have died from making that trip. the government says the travelling must stop to cut levels of illegal migration and to reduce the number of people dying. 116,000 people crossed the channel last year. so far this year, more than 27,000 have done the same. that's 19,000 fewer people so far. ever since the rwanda policy was created, its been bogged down in the courts and nobody has been sent to the country, with planes halted at the last minute. the supreme court judges will have looked at the following when making theirjudgement: were the right tests applied when determining whether removal to rwanda would breach article 3? if the right tests were applied, was the court of appeal entitled to interfere with its conclusion that rwanda was a safe third country? were there substantial grounds for believing asylum seekers sent to rwanda would face a real risk of bad treatment? they'd also be looking at whether it's right that judges are able to interrogate a government agreement, basically. so you've got this government agreement between the governments of the united kingdom and rwanda, saying that everything will be, everybody will be properly looked after, everything is going to be fine. and really, is it appropriate and right thatjudges are able to review that and make an assessment for themselves as to whether that agreement will be respected by both governments? labour has called the plan "unworkable, unethical and extortionately expensive". so far, the uk has paid the rwandan government £140 million. some campaigners have argued assurances from the african countries' ministers were not sufficient to ensure that there is no real risk to asylum seekers. sophie lucas represents several clients who are at risk of deportation. well, many of our clients are survivors of torture, of trafficking, they've fled war—torn countries. they have been living in limbo, many of them, since may last year. so the repercussions of tomorrow's decision will be felt very strongly by them and many others in the uk who came to seek refuge. which brings us to the allegations made by suella braverman in her letter this evening. she says the european court of human rights' rule 39 would mean even if the government wins tomorrow, it could mean months of delay, as claimants can use interim orders to appeal the decision. some lawyers agree with the former home secretary that the government could have legislated more firmly to prevent this and make clear it would ignore rule 39 in future. but others argue this year's illegal migration act does give the government the power to ignore rule 39, meaning migrants could be deported within weeks, though it could be a breach of international law to do this. it is by no means certain that the european court would reconsider the case if the ruling is clear on human rights. even before suella braverman�*s attack tonight on the prime minister, tomorrow was already set to be a big moment for one of its flagship policies. all eyes tomorrow on courtroom one at the supreme court. in a moment, we hope to speak to conservative mp for cleepthorpes' martin vickers, but first let's talk to labour's dame diana johnson, who chairs the home affairs select committee. the government says it is not stopping here, what can it legally do? ~ . stopping here, what can it legally do? ~' ., ., ., ., , do? i think we have to wait and see what happens _ do? i think we have to wait and see what happens tomorrow. _ do? i think we have to wait and see what happens tomorrow. i - do? i think we have to wait and see what happens tomorrow. i think - do? i think we have to wait and see | what happens tomorrow. i think the thing about the rwanda case, whether it is lawful or unlawful, we don't actually know whether this policy would work in practice. the home affairs select committee was really clear that the government are pursuing the rwanda policy because they say will deter people from getting the small boats. we don't have evidence of that. whether tomorrow they find that yes, you can go ahead and implement it, still a test about whether it practically works. if it doesn't and they say it is unlawful, the prime minister, the new home secretary are going to going to have to up with plan b because their approach to small boats is based on the rwanda policy. they would say small boats are down by a third this year and that could be about the potential issue, it could be that. let's talk about the rule 39. so what suella braverman seems to be getting at is that actually there is a way if you leave the echr that that doesn't matter, no matter what happens tomorrow, what is your reaction to that? the home affairs _ what is your reaction to that? tie: home affairs select committee has always looked at this in regard to international law, complying with our international obligations. we think that the government should have a range of policy responses to the small boats issue, notjust the rwanda policy, where there is not the direct evidence they need. so we say within international law, there are a range of policy options the government could pursue to tackle the small boats issue. you government could pursue to tackle the small boats issue.— the small boats issue. you are talkinu the small boats issue. you are talking with — the small boats issue. you are talking with your— the small boats issue. you are talking with your chair- the small boats issue. you are talking with your chair of - the small boats issue. you are talking with your chair of the l the small boats issue. you are - talking with your chair of the home affairs select committee now, but let's talk to you as an labour mp. —— you are talking as chair. let's talk to you as an labour mp. -- you are talking as chair.- let's talk to you as an labour mp. -- you are talking as chair. what is labour's approach? _ -- you are talking as chair. what is labour's approach? yvette - -- you are talking as chair. what is labour's approach? yvette cooperl -- you are talking as chair. what is i labour's approach? yvette cooper has set out clearly what labour would do, range of things from improving cross—border policing involvement, going after the people smugglers. taking action with our european colleagues to enter into arrangements.- colleagues to enter into arranrements. _, colleagues to enter into arranrements. ,., ., , arrangements. the government has already made _ arrangements. the government has already made cross-border- already made cross—border arrangements with the police in calais and they have been doing the checks, they have been doing the returns. ladle checks, they have been doing the returns. ~ ., , checks, they have been doing the returns. ~ ~' , ., ., returns. we think there is more that can be done — returns. we think there is more that can be done and _ returns. we think there is more that can be done and they _ returns. we think there is more that can be done and they are _ returns. we think there is more that can be done and they are not - returns. we think there is more that can be done and they are not doing l can be done and they are not doing the returns. but we think there is more they could do. but the home affairs select committee, which is cross—party, came up with a report last year and a series of policies we thought the government should look at, putting all their eggs into one basket with rwanda, we don't know what will happen tomorrow, is going to be a problem for them. let's turn now to tomorrow's debate on the king's speech. there is an snp mm calling for a ceasefire. we know tonight there is going to be a labour —— a labour amendment and that will say, far too many deaths of innocent civilians in gaza, including children. we back, the uk backs a rules—based international order and calls on israel to protect hospitals. you are vice chair of labour friends of israel, due hospitals. you are vice chair of labourfriends of israel, due back the labour amendment? iam i am pleased it has been tabled and i am pleased it has been tabled and i will vote for it. it sets out a framework for what we would like to see in terms of the development of humanitarian causes moving on helpfully to the cessation of fighting. but we do back international law and backed the fact that israel and taking action to protect themselves has got to be within international humanitarian law. ., ., ., ~ ., law. original we do not know if there would — law. original we do not know if there would be _ law. original we do not know if there would be a _ law. original we do not know if there would be a labour- law. original we do not know if - there would be a labour amendment and a number of your colleagues were going to back the snp amendment. and backed calls for a ceasefire. keir starmer has consistently refused to call for a ceasefire. if your labour colleagues think the labour amendment is not strong enough and back the snp amendment calling for a ceasefire should keir starmer sack them? i ceasefire should keir starmer sack them? . ., ., ~ , them? i chaired the home affairs select committee _ them? i chaired the home affairs select committee and _ them? i chaired the home affairs select committee and i _ them? i chaired the home affairs select committee and i am - them? i chaired the home affairs select committee and i am a - select committee and i am a backbencher, i'm not on the labour party front bench and i hope all my colleagues will feel that the amendment setting out what the labour position is in full and recognising what kier starmer said in his chatham house speech and building on the dreadful events of the last few weeks, i hope that amendment will mean we can all bunny around that labour amendment and vote for it tomorrow. we around that labour amendment and vote for it tomorrow.— vote for it tomorrow. we are having technical issues _ vote for it tomorrow. we are having technical issues trying _ vote for it tomorrow. we are having technical issues trying to _ vote for it tomorrow. we are having technical issues trying to speak - vote for it tomorrow. we are having technical issues trying to speak to l technical issues trying to speak to the conservative mp martin vickers but will keep trying. the billionaire russian oligarch roman abramovich who, for years, enjoyed a high—profile life in the uk, including the ownership of chelsea football club, has spent much of the past two decades denying his links with the russian president vladimir putin. those denials continued even after he was sanctioned by the uk and the eu council last year, but not the us, for his proximity to the russian leader and for allegedly profiting from the kremlin regime. abramovich has launched legal action to get the eu sanctions overturned. but now a major investigation by this programme — with bbc verify, panorama and the bureau of investigativejournalism — has found new evidence of an apparent financial link between the two men. here's ben. the most famous russian oligarch in the west. someone we've read a lot about over the past few years. 0il tycoon and politician roman abramovich... britain's most famous russian... russian billionaire - roman abramovich... a fixture in headlines for two decades — thanks to his purchases of football clubs, yachts, art, property. but it all came crashing down for roman abramovich in february 2022. it was unprovoked, but this is what russian president vladimir putin unleashed on ukraine. abramovich has links to putin, who is mounting a barbaric and evil attack against the people of ukraine. abramovich was sanctioned in march 2022 by the uk government and the eu council. his assets frozen,