Refugee camps explained: why South Africa has avoided them
ABI staff member Franzisca Zanker explains in this article for The Conversation, together with Ulrike Krause, why South Africa has so far avoided refugee camps, and what the new facility in Musina, on the border with Zimbabwe, could mean for the country.
For three decades, South Africa has been an outlier on the continent: instead of housing refugees and asylum seekers in camps, it has let them settle, work and study in its cities, a policy rooted in the country's post-apartheid political identity. That is now being tested. In July 2026, authorities began processing undocumented migrants at a temporary repatriation facility in Musina following weeks of anti-migrant rhetoric and xenophobic violence.
Zanker and Krause use the moment to clarify a point often missed in public debate: refugee camps are a policy choice, not a legal requirement.
Even when camps are framed as “temporary” and “protective”, the reality is usually different. Many persist for years, restrict people’s freedom of movement, and can deepen the very tensions with host communities they are meant to prevent. Although current developments do not point to a broader move towards refugee camps, sustaining South Africa’s urban model will require balancing protection obligations with mounting political and economic pressures.
The article is available on the website of The Conversation.