Kenya is among a handful of African countries being considered by European nations as a possible location for holding rejected asylum seekers while arrangements are made to return them to their home countries, according to reports by Dutch broadcaster RTL Nieuws.
The Netherlands, working alongside Germany, Austria, Denmark, and Greece within a European Union coalition, is exploring the establishment of so-called “return hubs” in third countries as part of a broader push to manage irregular migration under the EU Migration Pact, which came into force two weeks ago.
Sources close to the Dutch government told RTL Nieuws that Kenya has emerged as the leading candidate among the countries under consideration, which also include Rwanda and Benin.
“Kenya is relatively prosperous, and the political situation is reasonably stable,” the sources said, explaining the country’s appeal to European officials.
The proposed centres would not be permanent settlements. Instead, they would serve as temporary holding locations for individuals whose asylum applications have been fully and finally rejected after all legal options have been exhausted, while governments arrange their repatriation to their countries of origin.
Rwanda is also under consideration but has drawn concern over its human rights record. Talks with Benin, a West African nation, are reportedly still at a very early stage. A previous plan involving Uganda was placed on hold after political instability in that country.
Despite the reports, no formal agreement exists between Kenya and any European government. The Dutch government’s involved ministers are expected to be briefed on the assessments shortly, after which a decision on the preferred direction will be made. The government hopes to conclude the process before the end of 2026.
The European Commission has stipulated that any such centres must comply with international human rights standards and be located in politically stable countries.
However, the proposal has already attracted criticism from human rights organisations and legal experts who argue that holding migrants in countries to which they have no ties raises serious concerns under international refugee law, particularly around the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning people to places where they may face harm.
The plan draws comparisons to Australia’s offshore detention centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, and the United Kingdom’s now-abandoned Rwanda deportation scheme — both of which faced sustained legal and humanitarian challenges.
For Kenya, the consideration raises complex questions about sovereignty, its standing within the African Union, and the capacity of its legal system to oversee the rights of foreign detainees in EU-funded facilities.
No official response from the Kenyan government has been made public at the time of writing.
