Kenya's Bold Move: The End of Africa's Largest Refugee Camps
Kakuma, 17 June 2026
Kenya has ordered the closure of Kakuma and Dadaab, home to nearly 800,000 refugees, by 2026—citing security risks. But with no clear relocation plan, fears of forced returns and humanitarian crises loom. What happens next could redefine refugee policy across Africa.
From Compensation Claims to Camp Closures: Kenya’s Shifting Refugee Policy
In June 2026, Kenya’s refugee crisis entered a new phase as the government ordered the closure of Kakuma and Dadaab refugee camps by the end of the year [1]. This announcement marks a dramatic escalation from the human rights violations and compensation claims reported in 2025, when refugees in Kakuma camp documented systemic neglect and food shortages [2]. The camps, hosting over 800,000 refugees as of May 2025, have long been a focal point of Kenya’s struggle to balance humanitarian obligations with economic and security concerns [1]. The latest directive from the Ministry of Interior specifically instructs the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to develop a timeline for closure, citing national security risks as the primary justification [1].
Kakuma and Dadaab: Numbers Behind Africa’s Largest Refugee Hubs
Kakuma refugee camp, including the Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement, currently hosts nearly 200,000 refugees and asylum seekers, while Dadaab accommodates approximately 300,000 [1]. The camps have evolved into de facto cities over three decades, with populations primarily from South Sudan (60%), Somalia (25%), Ethiopia (10%), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (5%) [1][3]. The camps’ combined population of 500,000 registered refugees represents over half of Kenya’s total refugee population of 847,000 as of May 2025 [1]. An additional 100,000–200,000 unregistered refugees are estimated to reside in urban centres like Nairobi and Mombasa, highlighting the scale of Kenya’s refugee situation [3].
The Shirika Plan: Kenya’s Blueprint for Camp Closure
The government’s closure order appears to accelerate the Shirika Plan, launched in March 2025 as a collaborative effort between Kenya and UNHCR [1][3]. The plan aims to transition refugee management from camp-based systems to government-led inclusion, with six pillars including sustainable economic development, climate action, and infrastructure investment [1]. The estimated budget for implementation is US$943 million, to be executed in three phases: 2025–2027 (preparation), 2028–2032 (transition), and 2033–2036 (resilience) [1]. The plan’s core objective is to convert camps into county-administered municipalities, enabling refugees to work, access public services, and contribute to local economies [1]. However, the June 2026 closure directive compresses the original timeline, raising questions about feasibility and preparedness [1].
Legal Precedents and Humanitarian Concerns
Kenya’s history of camp closure threats provides critical context for the current directive. In 2021, the government announced plans to close Dadaab and Kakuma, but these were quashed by a High Court ruling in 2024, which deemed the closures unconstitutional without adequate safeguards for refugees’ rights [3]. The 2024 ruling emphasised the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the forced return of refugees to countries where they face persecution [3]. Humanitarian organisations have expressed alarm at the 2026 directive, warning of potential forced repatriation, loss of essential services, and increased vulnerability for refugees [alert! ‘No official UNHCR response as of 17 June 2026’][1]. The Department of Refugee Services (DRS) has advised refugees to monitor official channels for verification exercises and policy updates, but details remain scarce [1].
Differentiated Instructions: Kakuma vs. Kalobeyei
The government’s directive distinguishes between Kakuma refugee camp and the Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement, despite their geographical proximity. Kakuma, established in 1992, operates under a traditional camp model with limited integration into host communities [3]. Kalobeyei, launched in 2016, was designed as a settlement model to promote self-reliance and coexistence with local populations [3]. The Shirika Plan’s infrastructure investments, including roads, water systems, healthcare, and education, are expected to prioritise Kalobeyei as a pilot for the transition to county-administered municipalities [1]. However, the June 2026 closure order does not clarify whether Kalobeyei will be exempt from the timeline or subject to accelerated integration [alert! ‘Government statement lacks specificity on Kalobeyei’][1].
Regional Implications: A New Model for Refugee Policy?
Kenya’s approach to refugee management could set a precedent for other African nations grappling with long-term displacement. Uganda, Ethiopia, and Sudan—each hosting over 1 million refugees—are closely monitoring the Shirika Plan’s implementation [GPT]. The plan aligns with the 2018 Global Compact on Refugees, which encourages governments to adopt inclusionary policies that benefit both refugees and host communities [1]. However, the compressed timeline and lack of clarity on relocation plans risk undermining these objectives [1]. International donors, including Sweden, have expressed support for the Shirika Plan’s goals but have not yet committed additional funding to accelerate the transition [4]. The European Union, a major donor to Kenya’s refugee programmes, has remained silent on the 2026 closure directive as of 17 June 2026 [alert! ‘No official EU statement’][1].
What Happens Next? Key Dates and Unanswered Questions
The timeline for the camps’ closure remains fluid, with critical milestones and uncertainties ahead. Key dates include: 30 June 2026 (two weeks from announcement), when the UNHCR is expected to submit a preliminary closure plan to the Kenyan government [1]; 31 December 2026, the government’s stated deadline for camp closures [1]; and 2027, the start of the Shirika Plan’s transition phase under the original timeline [1]. Unanswered questions persist, including the fate of unregistered refugees, the status of Kalobeyei, and the legal framework for repatriation or local integration [1][3]. Refugees in Kakuma and Dadaab are advised to participate in ongoing verification exercises to secure documentation and access to assistance programmes [1].