What Malawi Can Learn from Uganda and Kenya on Refugee Policy
By Chikondi Jere, SALC Criminal Justice Cluster lead
Published in the Malawi Nation, 25 May 2026
Three years after Malawi intensified enforcement of its refugee encampment policy, the situation at Dzaleka Refugee Camp continues to expose the limits of a system built largely around restriction and containment.
Originally designed for between 10,000 and 12,000 people, Dzaleka now hosts more than 57,000 refugees and asylum seekers. The overcrowding has overwhelmed housing, sanitation, healthcare, and education services. At the same time, shrinking humanitarian funding has reduced food assistance and other essential support. The result is a growing humanitarian crisis.
As Malawi reflects on the future of its refugee policy, an important question arises: are there better alternatives to strict encampment? Across Africa, some countries are moving away from policies that isolate refugees in overcrowded camps and are instead promoting approaches focused on inclusion, self-reliance, and economic participation.
Uganda is perhaps the strongest example. Uganda allows refugees greater freedom of movement, access to work, and land for farming. Instead of viewing refugees only as aid beneficiaries, the model recognises that refugees can contribute economically when given opportunities. Refugees in Uganda can run businesses, seek employment, and participate in local economies. The government and humanitarian partners have also promoted shared development projects where refugees and host communities benefit from the same schools, health centres, and infrastructure.
While Uganda still faces serious pressures from hosting large refugee populations, the broader philosophy behind its approach is important: reducing dependency by allowing refugees greater independence.
Kenya has also experimented with more inclusive alternatives through the Kalobeyei settlement model near Kakuma refugee camp. Unlike traditional encampment systems, Kalobeyei was designed around economic integration and long-term development. Refugees and host communities participate in shared markets, vocational training, businesses and public services. The goal is to help refugees become more self-reliant while also benefiting surrounding communities.
These examples matter because they show that refugee management need not rely entirely on confinement. Malawi’s encampment policy was justified on grounds of national security and migration control. However, the policy has also produced unintended consequences. Before enforcement intensified, many refugees in Malawi had established businesses, attended universities, and supported themselves outside Dzaleka. Forced relocation disrupted livelihoods, interrupted education, and pushed many families back into dependence on humanitarian assistance.
Ironically, movement restrictions now make it harder for refugees to support themselves at a time when humanitarian funding is declining. This is where Malawi can begin learning from regional examples. A more inclusive refugee policy does not necessarily mean abandoning regulation or security considerations. Rather, it means recognising that long-term encampment alone is neither economically sustainable nor socially beneficial.
Malawi could gradually explore reforms that expand opportunities for refugees while maintaining proper oversight. Refugees with verified documentation, for example, could be granted broader access to work permits, tertiary education, and regulated movement for employment or business purposes. The Government and development partners could also support refugee entrepreneurship and include host communities around Dzaleka in development programmes so that local Malawians benefit from improved infrastructure, schools, and healthcare services.
Importantly, adopting more inclusive policies could reduce pressure on Dzaleka itself. Allowing greater economic participation outside the camp may gradually reduce overcrowding and dependence on aid. The international community also has a role to play. Malawi cannot be expected to manage a growing refugee population without stronger financial and technical support.
Uganda and Kenya are not perfect models, but they demonstrate that alternatives to strict encampment are possible. For Malawi, the lesson may not be to copy these countries exactly, but to begin asking a different question: instead of simply how to contain refugees, how can refugee policy create conditions where both refugees and host communities can live more sustainably and productively? Three years later, that may be the conversation Malawi most urgently needs.