On Tuesday, 23 March, Kenya’s Minister for Interior, Fred Matiang'i gave UNHCR 14 days to draw up a plan for the closure of both Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps, which together host almost half a million refugees – saying that the camps have been harbouring terrorists who pose a threat to the country. At the end of the 14 days, UNHCR gave a roadmap for the closure of the camps, which the Kenyan government rejected, saying the agency was pussyfooting with no realistic plans to close the camps. UNHCR proposed to have the camps closed by December 2022, but the government is asking for a closure before national elections to be held in August 2022.

However, there is some short reprieve after the High Court of Kenya issued an order stopping the closure until a petition by a former presidential aspirant, who says the forced closure is unconstitutional, is heard.

This is not the first time Kenya has called for closing the camps; similar calls were made in 2016 and 2019, mostly in response to terrorist attacks and before upcoming elections. Earlier calls have, however, mostly focused on Dadaab. The Minister, while rejecting the Roadmap by UNHCR, took a softer stance saying they “will give a chance to diplomacy,” after decrying that Kenya has borne the burden of hosting refugees on its own, with other actors not living up to their commitments. The latest call to close the camps comes on the backdrop of rising tensions between Kenya and Somalia over a maritime border dispute – the case is ongoing in the Hague – as well as violence in Gedo.

In the past, MSF has vocally advocated against the closing of camps, especially following the announcement in 2016, when MSF issued a briefing report based on an intention survey of refugees. MSF country team continues to engage bilaterally with UNHCR, donors and humanitarian agencies in Kenya to better understand their positioning and to collectively raise concerns about sudden camp closures. But given MSF’s decade-long advocacy in favour of refugees, MSF must continue to take an active public position to promote durable solutions for refugees. At the same time, MSF must ensure its public communications is not counter-productive for refugees or for MSF operations in Kenya and Dagahaley.