Refugee Reception: The Ongoing Influence of Historical Laws and Traditional Conceptualisations of Refugees in Zambia
In the book ‘Refugee Reception in Southern Africa: National and Local Policies in Zambia and South Africa’, recently published by University of London Press, I argue the need to understand state-based refugee reception in Southern Africa – and the broader continent – as a complex and ongoing process of negotiations between refugees and state bodies and other key stakeholders such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Refugee reception is traditionally framed as a one-off moment, such as the registration process at a reception office or the arrival of a refugee to a refugee camp. Instead, I argue that reception is a process of negotiations, whereby various factors – including material ones (such as capacity and security concerns) – may conflict with others – such as ideational ones (legal and normative obligations to implement human rights ideals). In this way, the reception of refugees is understood as ‘a political process of contestation’ in which a range of structures and actors continue to effect and shape how refugees receive a welcome on the ground in host countries.
This means that while international and national refugee law continues to play a role in how state-based reception policies play out in Southern African countries and more broadly on the continent, it remains just one factor of many factors involved in these on-going ‘negotiations’. This article uses the case study of Zambia, and specifically the continuing influence of the historical 1970 Refugee (Control) Act (‘the 1970 Refugee Act’), as an example of the complexity of factors involved in refugee reception within the region. It is vital to identify and better understand these factors and how they engage with each other in localized settings if we are to convince states on the continent to finally move away from camps and settlements as the main form of welcome given towards refugees.
Refugee Reception in Zambia
Zambia has maintained formal refugee settlements as the dominant reception policy since the 1970s. In essence, this means that once a refugee has been through the national registration procedure(s), they are normally moved to one of the three main settlements in Zambia: Mayukwayukwa, Meheba or Mantapala. Until 2017, the reception of refugees and the treatment of refugees in Zambia were governed by the 1970 Refugee Act. This restrictive Act required that refugees remain in the formal settlements, with its key purpose being the control of movement. Through this approach, refugees are isolated and kept away from key political and social space(s) and in doing so, distinct reception sites are created on the territory but not of the territory.
Over time, forms of contestation between key national entities that deal with refugee issues in Zambia have emerged, mainly due to differing interpretations of the 1970 Refugee Act. Firstly, the Office of the Commissioner for Refugees (COR) has historically interpreted national refugee law broadly and progressively. For example, COR extended its mandate beyond the confines of the 1970 Act, by creating ad hoc administrative procedures to allow refugees access to urban spaces. This included the granting of gate passes and urban residency permits (URPs) to significant numbers of refugees, which allowed them to leave the settlements in the short to medium term. In contrast, other government departments such as the Department for Immigration and the police have tended to take a much stricter view of the 1970 Act, seeing refugees as persons who reside only in the settlements - looked after by UNHCR and the wider international community.
The 2017 Refugee Act
In 2017, the Zambian government passed a new Refugee Act. The new 2017 Refugee Act incorporates both the definition of a refugee as set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention and the wider definition in the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention. Importantly, it also explicitly includes several of the fundamental rights contained within these international refugee treaties. This shift in national law follows and supports commitments made by the state at the global level, including being one of the first countries to sign up to the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework, and numerous pledges made at the two Global Forums.
The new Act does, however, fall short of incorporating all core global refugee norms into Zambian national legislation. Key to this, is the state’s refusal to remove the historical restrictions on freedom of movement. Nevertheless, the new Act can be broadly understood as a progressive step. Since its adoption, COR has been interpreting the Act in ways that allow refugees further access to urban spaces. For example, by interpreting specific articles relating to self-employment in a way that creates the potential for far greater access to cities such as Lusaka. The hope is that the new National Refugee Policy which was published in 2024 (along with an Implementation Plan) will strengthen these approaches further.
Yet, the old legal framework embodied in the 1970 Refugee Act continues to shape how many Zambian national officials understand who a refugee is and where they should be hosted. Indeed, much of the current understanding and knowledge of refugees in various divisions of the broader Home Affairs Department can be traced back to the 1970 Refugee Act. As a result, many in the national government understand refugees solely within the geographical context of settlements.
This framing means that any movement outside of a settlement is understood as illicit. This conceptualisation of ‘illicit’ movement has a two-fold effect. Firstly, it constructs refugees residing outside the settlements in Zambia as illegal migrants. Secondly, it creates a feedback-loop within these government departments whereby the ‘illicit’ nature of the movement reinforces the perceived need for control of refugees through encampment reception policies.
Ultimately, these opposing constructions of refugees and ‘acceptable’ reception spaces between different government departments - through the differing interpretations of past and present legal frameworks - produce institutional contestation. Thus, wide variation in the treatment of refugees outside of the settlements is regularly reported. Indeed, many refugees in urban spaces constantly live with the fear of being detained or having bribes extorted from them by law enforcement officers, regardless of assurances by COR that their stay in these spaces is permitted.
“…any attempt at moving away from traditional refugee camp policies and, in turn, reconceptualising for many who a refugee is and what rights they have, will take a whole of government approach and cannot be done in half-measures.”
Continued Contestation
In many ways, the new Refugee Act has not helped resolve the ongoing contestation between government departments. In part, this is because the new Act only goes so far in relation to the inclusion of global refugee regime norms. Freedom of movement continues to be restricted, and spatial limitations to refugee reception are maintained. This means that convincing other government departments to re-imagine refugees and their movement outside camp spaces is likely to continue to be a difficult endeavour for COR (and UNHCR). The old Act has held sway over state bodies’ understanding and approach to refugees since the 1970s and remains deeply entrenched within bureaucratic structures and mindsets.
To conclude, the tension between the historical ideational power of the former Act within key state departments versus the institutional approach of COR demonstrates how competing factors embedded within state behaviour shape ongoing negotiations between key actors and, ultimately, unique outcomes for reception policy. This results in a precarious situation, whereby while the camp-based reception approach is upheld, COR frequently permits some movement and access to urban spaces. This approach, and the additional movement that comes with it, inevitably clashes though with broader institutional understandings of what a ‘refugee’ is and where they should be housed. Eventually this results in the opposite intended effect: namely, confirmation within other government departments of a need for the encampment policy.
These findings have important policy implications for Zambia, and the wider region and continent. As introduced above, in ‘Refugee Reception in Southern Africa,’ I argue for the need to identify and understand the core material, bureaucratic and ideational factors that compete and contest with each other to produce refugee reception policies on the ground. This localized knowledge is vital if we are to convince host states to continue to open up urban spaces to refugees and abandon the architecture of encampments.
Finally, any attempt at moving away from traditional refugee camp policies and, in turn, reconceptualising for many who a refugee is and what rights they have, will take a whole of government approach and cannot be done in half-measures. For Zambia (and wider afield), this means freedom of movement must remain paramount in any discussion.
Editor’s note: Refugee Reception in Southern Africa: National and Local Policies in Zambia and South Africa is published by the University of London Press (UoLP) and is available now to purchase in paperback or download for free from the UoLP website.
