In northern Kenya, a local protest is bringing to light the complex migration dilemmas confronting much of the African continent. At the heart of the debate is the Shirika Plan, a government initiative aimed at integrating refugees into host communities. Yet despite President William Ruto’s promises, leaders of the Turkana community are raising concerns of injustice and exclusion.

On Friday, 28 March 2025, local authorities in Turkana County, on the border with South Sudan, voiced strong opposition to the refugee integration project. Daniel Epuyo, Member of Parliament for Turkana West, stated: “The government has failed to respect the constitution by imposing a plan without so much as a public consultation.” In a region already facing a double crisis of food and water insecurity, the prospect of integrating tens of thousands of refugees arouses more fear than hope.

A pan-African solution?

President Ruto, for his part, presents the Shirika Plan as a bold and innovative response to a continent-wide challenge. Drawing on the African Union’s vision of “African solutions to African problems”, the plan seeks to transform the Kakuma and Kalobeyei refugee camps into integrated communities where refugees and local dwellers have equal access to education, healthcare and employment opportunities.

However laudable this vision may be, it collides with a harsh local reality: host communities like the Turkana continue to live in precarious conditions, with limited access to basic services, such as potable drinking water, healthcare, and education. Their question is striking: how can we be expected to share what we ourselves so clearly lack?

A continental challenge with local response?

The situation in Kenya reflects a broader tension in West Africa and in other parts of the continent: African hospitality, so often cherished and celebrated, is increasingly strained by pressure on local resources, particularly in fragile rural areas.

For decades, communities in countries like Togo, Niger, Burkina Faso and Côte d’Ivoire have opened their doors to displaced people, many fleeing conflict or natural disasters. Yet few governments  have meaningfully engaged with host communities to find lasting, inclusive solutions. The result has often been frustration, misunderstanding and at times, violence.

A frequent mistake: integration before consultation

The opposition of Turkana leaders to the Shirika plan should not be seen as a categorical rejection of refugees. Rather, as a call for a more inclusive and participatory approach. By sidelining local communities in the planning process, the Kenyan government is fostering mistrust and risking a deepening  of social tensions.

This scenario should serve as a lesson to other African countries: the management of migratory flows, whether internal or cross-border, cannot be achieved without the involvement of those primarily affected. Political will and international support alone are not enough. There is aneed to listen to local voices, identify vulnerabilities and create a space for open dialogue where all stakeholders (refugees, hosts, elected representatives, NGOs, institutions) can work together to find sustainable solutions.

A broader debate on integration in Africa

The Kenyan case reopens an important dialogue on citizenship, inclusion and rights: to what extent can an African country integrate refugees when many of its own citizens live in precarious conditions? And what does integration truly mean in societies already shaped by deep-rooted inequalities?

This conversation must move beyond political and academic spheres and engage directly with the communities at its heart. That is the mission of platforms like Dialogue Migration – bringing people back to the centre of the migration discourse and ensuring that local voices and lived experiences inform policy decisions.Migration is, and will continue to be, a fundamental reality in Africa. Whether voluntary or forced, it demands coordinated responses grounded in solidarity and respect for the rights of all. The Shirika Plan holds promise… but only if it emerges from a genuine dialogue between the state, refugees and host communities.