Responding to “immense security challenges,” the Kenyan government announced in an official statement on Friday that it will no longer be able to host the over half a million people living in the country’s two refugee camps and dispersed throughout its cities.

“The Government of Kenya has been forced by circumstances to reconsider the whole issue of hosting refugees and the process of repatriation… hosting of refugees has come to an end,” Kenya’s National Police Service issued in a Twitter post on Friday.

As of March 2015, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), Kenya’s two official camps–Dadaab in the east and Kakuma in the northwest–housed 584, 989 refugees. Fleeing civil war, political persecution, and drought in places like Somalia (where 72 percent of refugees hail from), South Sudan (16 percent) and Ethiopia (5 percent), some of the refugees have created a home for themselves in Kenya’s camps, especially the oldest and largest one in Dadaab, near the country’s arid eastern border with Somalia. Over a quarter million people have established lives in Dadaab, most of whom were displaced by war in Somalia when they were children and have since made a home in the “tent city.”

The Kenyan government has been pushing to close the camps for a few years. Last April, the government voiced intentions of shutting down the Dadaab camp, citing security concerns. And though the UNHCR, which runs the camp, agreed to assist Somalian refugees (which comprise the vast majority of Dadaab’s displaced peoples) who volunteered to return home, the organization opposed forced repatriation.

The sprawl of the displaced: One of Dadaab’s five camps. Over a quarter of a million refugees, namely Somalians, call this home. [Image courtesy of United Nations Photo]

Last spring’s announcement followed an attack at Garissa University, where a group of gunmen loyal to al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda linked, Somali-based terrorist group, shot and killed 147 students. Kenya has been mired in a conflict with the Islamic terrorist group for nearly a decade. Al-Shabaab has been committing acts of terror on Kenyan soil for years, killing soldiers and civilians alike, and it is the primary security threat the government referred to in its decision to close the refugee camps.

Following the Garissa attacks, the government alleged al-Shabaab had infiltrated Dadaab and used it to plot and launch attacks. In March, Kenyan newspaper The Star reported an al-Shabaab gun smuggler was caught at Dadaab, with not much more concrete evidence to support the government’s claims.

But the latest announcement seemingly came out of nowhere, following no mass casualty event or obvious security concern.

“I think it’s legitimate to believe that Kenya is issuing the threat as a means to leverage more resources from international donors,” said Mark Yarnell, Senior Advocate at Refugees International in an interview with Law Street Media.

Refugees from the nations that surround it seek a life free from war, drought and political persecution in Kenya. [Image courtesy of greenravine via Flickr]

Pointing out that Kenya’s security concerns certainly are real and legitimate, Yarnell, who has spent time in the field in East and Central Africa, predicted the latest threat by the Kenyan government is meant to extract more resources from the international community to deal with its conflict with al-Shabaab, more as a leverage tool than a step toward abolishing camps and rounding up refugees “at the barrel of a gun.”

“[The camps] are quite entrenched in the country, with their own market systems and infrastructure,” he said, likening the demolition of the two camps to essentially wiping out two cities. “You have people who were born in the camp and kids of people who were born in the camp and all they know is Dadaab or Kakuma.”

He pointed to a recent communiqué from the African Union on the Dadaab camp as the validation the Kenyan government needs to show the rest of the world it is in solidarity with a larger institution to do something in regards to the camps and maintaining Kenya’s security. In the communiqué, the AU Peace and Security Council acknowledged the “legitimate security concerns” facing Kenya, the threat of Dadaab to the security of Kenya, and the need to accelerate the process of repatriating Somali refugees who volunteer to do so.

It also called on international partners, “particularly the United Nations” to “extend necessary financial, logistical and technical support” to the Somalian government, and “to increase funding to Somalia, Kenya, UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies.”

If the Kenyan government follows through with its latest proclamation, hundreds of thousands of refugees will suffer, wandering, with nowhere to settle but the homes they were forced to abandon. Some left those homes decades ago.

That’s not to say Kenya’s refugee camps are perfect, permanent homes. Flooding, disease and malnutrition have wrecked havoc on Dadaab in the past, and according to UNHCR, there were eleven epidemics reported in 2012 alone.

Despite the imperfect conditions of Dadaab and Kakuma, UNHCR expressed “profound concern” over the latest announcement from the Kenyan government in an official statement released on Monday:

In today’s global context of some 60 million people forcibly displaced, it is more important than ever that international asylum obligations prevail and are properly supported. In light of this, and because of the potentially devastating consequences for hundreds of thousands of people that premature ending of refugee hosting would have, UNHCR is calling on the Government of Kenya to reconsider its decision and to avoid taking any action that might be at odds with its international obligations towards people needing sanctuary from danger and persecution. 

Under the leadership of President Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya would be breaking international law if it went forward with these plans, for which there are various legal statutes assuring the protection of refugees by the host nation. The primary right afforded to refugees worldwide is a promise of non-refoulement, or return to a place where their life and freedoms would be threatened.

“It would be such an egregious violation of basic refugee rights and their own constitution,” Yarnell said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kenyan Government Signals Shutdown of Refugee Camps appeared first on Law Street.

The International Criminal Court has been pursuing a case against Uhuru Kenyatta, the current President of Kenya since the violent events of the 2008 Presidential Elections. The ICC prosecutor recently called for a delay in the proceedings because of insufficient evidence to try Kenyatta.

This case does not resemble a dismissed case in an American court, though. The complicated history of the defendant, Kenyatta, and the International Criminal Court, both come into play in a tale that seems to get more complicated by the day.

During the 2007-2008 Kenyan elections, the incumbent, Mwai Kibaki was running against a challenger, Raila Odinga. Kibaki won, but Odinga supporters alleged that the Kibaki campaign rigged the elections. After the results were announced, violence broke out, mostly along ethnic lines that matched up with the ethnic groups from which Kibaki and Odinga came. It is estimated that 1,200 people were killed and about half a million displaced from their homes.

The Odinga side continued to accuse Kibaki and his supporters of election manipulation, but the Kibaki side accused the Odinga supporters of inciting ethnic violence.

Kenya attempted to conduct their own investigation, but it was unsuccessful and not fruitful. So in 2011, the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, took matters into his own hands. He indicted six people–Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Industrialisation Minister Henry Kosgey, Education Minister William Ruto, Cabinet Secretary Francis Muthaura, radio executive Joshua Arap Sang, and former police commissioner Mohammed Hussein Al for Crimes Against Humanity.

Kenya, of course, did not want to go along with the indictment of some of its top officials, and attempted to remove itself from the Rome Statute that allows the prosecutor to press charges. However, when that move was ultimately unsuccessful, those officials did show up in court for preliminary hearings and attempted to cooperate fully with the Hague-based ICC.

The case was further complicated by the election of Uhuru Kenyatta to the position of the Kenyan Presidency earlier this year. This week, his case took another turn when the current ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, asked for a three month delay from the set start date of February 5th, to look for more evidence. She claims that she had to drop two of her key witnesses because they were offering false testimony or refusal to testify, and now needs more time to follow up with others.

Whether or not she will be able to proceed when that three months elapses will depend on whether she is able to gather enough evidence. She claims that Kenya has not provided sufficient evidence, and stated, “it is necessary to exhaust this line of inquiry – hitherto blocked by the [government] – to determine whether the existing witness testimony regarding the accused’s alleged funding of the [electoral violence] can be corroborated by documentary evidence”.

The whole mess with the Kenyan election trials has led to another debate, this time about the ICC’s actions as a whole. Since the court was founded 11 years ago, there have been eight cases before the ICC. All eight have been from Africa.

African leaders are now arguing that the ICC is discriminatory. The African Union is claiming that justice does not appear to be applied fairly around the world, because the atrocities committed in Afghanistan, Syria, and Colombia have occurred without a word from the ICC.

However, it’s important to note that there are a few different ways cases can make it to the ICC. One of those is self-referral, and of the eight African cases, five came to the ICC in such a manner.

The ICC has always been a contentious topic–the Rome Statute that authorizes it hasn’t even been ratified by the US or Russia, for fear of potential future cases. The ICC has been a grand experiment in international justice; born out of the Nuremberg Trials and special courts set up for the crimes committed in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and others. And so far, the ICC has had some successes and some failures. But if they can’t work around the Kenyatta issue, the ICC may end up a failed experiment.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [ViktorDobal via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICC’s Case Against Kenyan President Delayed appeared first on Law Street.