Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations

This chapter presents a comprehensive synthesis of findings from the comparative

analysis of immigration frameworks in Zambia, South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria. The
analysis reveals significant variations in approaches to balancing national security
concerns with human rights protections in immigration enforcement. While all four
countries face similar challenges related to migration management, their legislative
frameworks, enforcement mechanisms, and human rights safeguards differ considerably,
offering valuable insights for potential reforms in Zambia's immigration system.

Summary of Findings

Legislative Frameworks and Governance Structures

The comparative analysis reveals distinct legislative approaches across the four
countries studied. Zambia's immigration system is primarily governed by the Immigration
and Deportation Act of 2010, which provides a comprehensive framework for managing
migration and grants the Minister extensive powers regarding the deportation of
prohibited immigrants.1 This contrasts with South Africa's Immigration Act of 2002 (with
amendments), which incorporates constitutional protections and court oversight in
deportation procedures. Kenya demonstrates a more rights-oriented approach through its
Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act of 2011, complemented by the progressive
Refugees Act of 2021 that explicitly codifies the non-refoulement principle. Nigeria's
Immigration Act of 2015 grants broad discretionary powers to the Minister of Interior,
similar to Zambia's framework.

The governance structures within these frameworks reveal varying levels of institutional
checks and balances. Zambia's system concentrates significant power within Ministerial
authority, creating potential gaps in oversight mechanisms. South Africa has developed a
more balanced approach with constitutional court interventions providing judicial
oversight, though implementation challenges persist. Kenya's framework stands out with
its National Coordination Mechanism on migration and dedicated human rights
commission involvement, creating a more structured approach to migration governance.
1
Section 17 and section 35 of the Immigration and Deportation Act of 2010
Nigeria has adopted a highly securitized approach to migration management, exemplified
by the 2019 land border closure justified on national security grounds.

The analysis indicates that Zambia's legislative framework, while providing clarity on
immigration procedures, lacks sufficient checks and balances compared to the more
progressive elements found in Kenya's and South Africa's systems.

Deportation Procedures and Human Rights Protections

Significant disparities exist in deportation procedures and associated human rights

safeguards. Zambia's framework permits detention without warrant and grants Ministerial
authorities broad deportation powers with limited rights of appeal. This procedural
framework has resulted in documented cases of refugee deportations that contravene
international standards, as evidenced by UNHCR's protests over the deportation of 36
refugees to the Democratic Republic of Congo without due process.2

South Africa's system provides stronger procedural protections, requiring written

notification of deportation decisions and court warrants for detention exceeding 48
hours.3 These protections stem from constitutional challenges to detention practices,
demonstrating the impact of judicial oversight. 4 Kenya's framework similarly incorporates
substantial due process elements, including a 90-day window for appeals and available
judicial remedies for challenging deportation orders.5 Nigeria's procedures more closely
resemble Zambia's with broad Ministerial discretion and limited procedural safeguards.

The human rights dimensions of these procedures vary considerably. Zambia has faced
criticism from international bodies, with UNHCR specifically urging the government to
"cease the expulsion of refugees and asylum seekers to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and uphold its refugee protection responsibilities under international law".6 Despite

2
https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing-notes/unhcr-protests-zambias-deportation-refugees
3
Roni Amit, Lost in the Vortex: Irregularities in the Detention and Deportation of Non-Nationals in South
Africa (Forced Migration Studies Programme, University of the Witwatersrand June
2010) http://www.migration.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Lost-in-the-Vortex-Irregularities-in-the-
Detention-and-Deportation-of-Non-Nationals-in-South-Africa.pdf accessed 14 May 2025.
4
ibid
5
Section 47 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act of 2011
6
n(2)
Zambia's longstanding tradition of hosting refugees (currently approximately 57,000), 7
recent deportation events have raised serious concerns about adherence to international
protection standards.8

Security-Rights Balance Approaches

The comparative analysis reveals different approaches to balancing security

considerations with human rights protections. Zambia demonstrates a high security
prioritization through broad definitions of "prohibited immigrants" while maintaining low
human rights safeguards with limited oversight mechanisms. This imbalance is evident in
the security operation at Meheba refugee settlement in February, which resulted in one
refugee being killed, several injured, and 150 arrested, followed by deportations without
due process.9

South Africa maintains high security prioritization through increased border enforcement,
but pairs this with medium-level constitutional protections, though inconsistently
implemented. Kenya presents the most balanced approach with medium security
prioritization through structured coordination mechanisms coupled with medium-high
human rights safeguards through dedicated human rights commission involvement.
Nigeria exhibits very high security prioritization through e-border surveillance and
securitization, but offers low-medium human rights safeguards.

The analysis indicates that Kenya's balanced approach, with its National Coordination
Mechanism and human rights commission oversight, provides a valuable model for
potential reforms in Zambia's framework.

Xenophobia Response Mechanisms

Formal mechanisms to address xenophobia differ significantly across the four countries.
Zambia's framework contains limited formal measures to address xenophobia, creating
potential vulnerabilities for migrant populations. South Africa has acknowledged
7
Zambia: UNHCR and the Zambian Government Commence a Socioeconomic Survey Targeting Refugees
and Their Host Communities. Zambia: UNHCR and the Zambian Government Commence a
Socioeconomic Survey Targeting Refugees and Their Host Communities - allAfrica.com
8
Zambia deports 263 suspected illegal immigrants https://www.zambiamonitor.com/zambia-deports-263-
suspected-illegal-immigrants/
9
n(2)
xenophobia as a challenge through anti-xenophobia statements in law, though practical
measures remain inadequate to address persistent xenophobic attitudes. Kenya has
adopted a human rights-based approach to migration governance that inherently
addresses xenophobia concerns. Nigeria shows limited formal recognition of xenophobia
as an issue despite increased attribution of security challenges to foreigners.

This comparative analysis suggests a correlation between formal recognition of

xenophobia and the development of protective mechanisms for migrant populations.
Zambia's limited formal recognition mirrors its limited protective measures, indicating an
area requiring significant attention in policy reforms.

Recommendations for Zambia

Based on the comparative analysis of immigration frameworks and identified best

practices across the four countries, the following recommendations are proposed for
Zambia:

1. Legal and Institutional Reforms

Zambia should establish an independent human rights monitoring mechanism, similar to

Kenya's model, with the power to investigate violations, access detention facilities, and
publish findings. The Immigration and Deportation Act should be amended to bolster due
process, incorporating safeguards like South Africa's constitutional provisions and
Kenya's 90-day appeal window, mandating judicial review of detention after 48 hours,
and providing clear avenues to challenge deportation orders. Following Kenya's example,
a national inter-agency coordination mechanism on migration should be developed to
improve policy coherence among departments involved in migration management,
including immigration, security agencies, human rights institutions, and civil society.
Drawing from South Africa, Zambia should also create specific anti-xenophobia
measures within its immigration policy, establishing monitoring and response protocols
for xenophobic incidents.

2. Human Rights Safeguards

A formal partnership should be established between Zambia's Human Rights
Commission and the Immigration Department, mirroring Nigeria's model, with defined
roles for human rights monitoring in immigration enforcement, including joint training,
regular consultations, and reporting mechanisms. Zambia should strengthen its refugee
protection framework by adopting Kenya's approach of explicitly incorporating the non-
refoulement principle into national law and developing clear guidelines for refugee status
determination aligned with international standards. A systematic, independent review of
all deportation orders should be instituted before execution to ensure compliance with
human rights standards. Additionally, specific protections and specialized procedures
should be developed for vulnerable migrants, such as pregnant women, children, the
elderly, and those with medical conditions, drawing from best practices in other countries.

3. Procedural Reforms

Following South Africa's model, Zambia should implement judicial oversight

requirements, such as court warrants for detention exceeding a specified period (e.g., 48
hours) and establishing maximum detention periods with mandatory judicial review.
Procedural transparency should be enhanced by requiring written notification of
deportation decisions, clearly explaining the grounds, available appeal mechanisms, and
timeframes for challenges, all provided in a language understood by the individual. Clear,
accessible, and effective appeal mechanisms for challenging deportation orders should
be established, with reasonable timeframes like Kenya's 90-day window and an explicit
stay of deportation pending appeal resolution. Alternatives to detention, such as regular
reporting, community supervision, or designated residence requirements, should be
developed, particularly for vulnerable individuals.

4. Implementation and Capacity Building

Comprehensive training programs for immigration officials on human rights standards,

cultural sensitivity, and anti-xenophobia awareness should be established, drawing from
Kenya's human rights-based approach. Monitoring and evaluation systems should be
strengthened to track compliance with human rights standards in immigration
enforcement, including regular data collection and analysis. Inter-agency coordination
between immigration authorities, security agencies, judicial bodies, and human rights
institutions should be enhanced to ensure coherent implementation of migration policies.
Finally, resource allocation must be increased to adequately support the implementation
of procedural reforms and human rights safeguards, including facilities, personnel, and
training programs.

Future Research Directions

The comparative analysis conducted in this study highlights several areas requiring
further research to address existing knowledge gaps and enhance understanding of
effective immigration governance:

Implementation Gap Analysis

Further research is needed to systematically analyze the implementation gaps between

legal frameworks and practical enforcement across African countries. While this study
has identified formal legislative provisions, understanding the factors affecting
implementation-including resource constraints, institutional capacities, and political
priorities-requires in-depth empirical research. Such analysis should incorporate both
quantitative metrics of enforcement outcomes and qualitative assessments of procedural
adherence.

Future studies should examine the organizational cultures within immigration

enforcement agencies and how these influence the interpretation and application of legal
frameworks. This research direction would provide valuable insights into the practical
barriers to implementing human rights safeguards in immigration enforcement and
identify effective strategies for overcoming these barriers.

Xenophobia Studies in Immigration Policy

The relationship between immigration policies and xenophobic attitudes requires more
nuanced exploration, particularly in the African context. While this study has identified
limited formal recognition of xenophobia in most immigration frameworks, further
research is needed to understand how policy framing and enforcement practices may
exacerbate or mitigate xenophobic sentiments.
Comparative studies examining the effectiveness of different anti-xenophobia measures
would provide valuable guidance for policy development. Such research should
incorporate interdisciplinary approaches drawing from legal studies, sociology, and
psychology to understand the complex interplay between policy, public discourse, and
social attitudes toward migrants.

Regional Cooperation Mechanisms

Future research should explore the potential for enhanced regional cooperation in
migration management within Africa. While this study has focused on national
frameworks, the transnational nature of migration necessitates cooperative approaches.
Research examining existing regional mechanisms-such as those within the East African
Community, ECOWAS, and SADC-would provide insights into effective models for
harmonizing immigration policies while maintaining appropriate human rights safeguards.

Such research should analyze the tensions between regional free movement protocols
and national security concerns, identifying effective balancing mechanisms that could be
implemented across different regional contexts.

Security-Human Rights Balance Frameworks

More theoretical and empirical work is needed to develop comprehensive frameworks for
balancing security imperatives with human rights protections in immigration enforcement.
This study has identified different balancing approaches across the countries examined,
but further research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of these approaches in
achieving both security and human rights objectives.

Future studies should develop measurable indicators for assessing this balance, enabling
more systematic comparative analysis across different national contexts. This research
direction would contribute to the development of evidence-based approaches to
immigration governance that effectively address legitimate security concerns while
upholding fundamental human rights principles.

Technological Developments in Immigration Management

Research exploring the human rights implications of emerging technologies in
immigration management represents an important future direction. As countries
increasingly adopt digital identification systems, biometric technologies, and automated
decision-making processes in immigration enforcement, understanding the potential
benefits and risks of these technologies becomes crucial.

Studies examining how technological developments interact with existing legal

frameworks and human rights protections would provide valuable guidance for policy
development. Such research should incorporate perspectives from technology ethics,
human rights law, and public administration to develop comprehensive frameworks for
responsible technology deployment in immigration management.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis of immigration frameworks in Zambia, South Africa, Kenya,

and Nigeria reveals significant variations in approaches to balancing national security
with human rights protections. Kenya's framework, with its structured coordination
mechanism and dedicated human rights commission involvement, offers the most
balanced approach, providing valuable lessons for potential reforms in Zambia's system.

The recommendations proposed for Zambia focus on strengthening legal and institutional
frameworks, enhancing human rights safeguards, implementing procedural reforms, and
building implementation capacity. These recommendations draw from identified best
practices across the four countries and aim to address the specific challenges identified
in Zambia's current framework, particularly regarding deportation procedures and human
rights protections.

The future research directions outlined highlight the need for continued scholarly
attention to implementation challenges, xenophobia dynamics, regional cooperation
mechanisms, security-rights balance frameworks, and technological developments in
immigration management. Addressing these research gaps would contribute significantly
to developing more effective, humane, and balanced approaches to immigration
governance across Africa.
Bibliography

Statutes

1. The Immigration and Deportation Act of 2010

2. Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act of 2011

Other sources

1. Roni Amit, Lost in the Vortex: Irregularities in the Detention and Deportation of
Non-Nationals in South Africa (Forced Migration Studies Programme, University
of the Witwatersrand June
2010) http://www.migration.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Lost-in-the-
Vortex-Irregularities-in-the-Detention-and-Deportation-of-Non-Nationals-in-
South-Africa.pdf accessed 14 May 2025
2. https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing-notes/unhcr-protests-zambias-deportation-refugees
3. Zambia: UNHCR and the Zambian Government Commence a Socioeconomic
Survey Targeting Refugees and Their Host Communities. Zambia: UNHCR and the
Zambian Government Commence a Socioeconomic Survey Targeting Refugees and Their
Host Communities - allAfrica.com
4. Zambia deports 263 suspected illegal immigrants
https://www.zambiamonitor.com/zambia-deports-263-suspected-illegal-
immigrants/