When the Victim Stings the Good Samaritan: Legal Implication on Refoulement of Refugees, a Kenyan Perspective

Abstract

Statistics indicate that Kenya is the host to hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers and refugees, approximately 70% of whom are from Somalia, 20% from South Sudan, while the rest are Ethiopians and Congolese, and about 20,000 are stateless persons. Kenya does this in fulfillment of its international obligations as a consequence of ratifying several treaties and conventions providing for protection of refugees pursuant to Article 2(6) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Relatively recent terrorist attacks, most of which can be attributed to asylum-seekers and refugees, have forced the Kenyan government to reconsider and reevaluate its position on the grant of refugee status and general treatment of refugees in the country. Despite there being a clear legal framework on treatment of refugees: The reaction of the Kenya, government has been seemingly drastic and quite harsh to the asylum seekers and refugees. That is, the requirement of movement of all refugees from cities to camps, refoulment decision and exerting stringent restrictions on asylum seekers and refugees when it comes to employment and naturalization. Kenya’s defense for its reaction to the terrorist attacks and the ramifications it has had on asylum seekers and refugees, is that the measures instituted are a necessary evil, and that the end should justify the means. This paper attempts to answer the question of whether or not Kenya is justified in inhumanely treating asylum seekers and refugees in order to protect her citizens from the menace of terrorism, assesses the efficacy of the measures taken and offers possible solutions to the available lacunas.