Hundreds of Burundian nationals gathered at the Embassy of Burundi on Dennis Pritt Road in Nairobi this week seeking passports, emergency travel documents and other consular paperwork, with some arriving carrying suitcases and household belongings. The scenes, documented on September 7 and 8, 2026, came as President William Ruto’s directive targeting foreigners operating small-scale businesses took effect, prompting some Burundians to prepare for a possible return home.
But the embassy queues do not, by themselves, establish that Kenya has ordered all Burundians to leave the country. The Burundian mission has said that issuing travel documents and assisting citizens with expired or unavailable documents is part of its routine consular work, while Kenya’s government has maintained that documented foreign nationals remain entitled to live and work in the country subject to Kenyan law. The immediate issue is therefore more complicated: a government enforcement campaign aimed at undocumented or unlicensed foreign traders has collided with widespread anxiety among East African migrants who fear that the policy could affect their livelihoods or safety.
Why hundreds of Burundians gathered at the embassy
The crowds began attracting attention in Nairobi on Monday, September 7, when large numbers of Burundian nationals were seen at their embassy and at nearby cyber cafés.
People queued with national identity cards, passports, permits and other documents. Some were seeking to renew or replace documentation, while others said they were preparing for the possibility of travelling back to Burundi. By Tuesday, September 8, photographs showed people with suitcases, sacks, backpacks, mattresses and other belongings waiting outside the embassy. Families with children were also among those present.
Reuters reported that some Burundians said they feared violence and did not regard their departure as voluntary. One Burundian interviewed by Reuters described leaving as something he felt forced to do rather than a decision he had freely made.
That testimony reflects the human dimension of the dispute, but it should be separated from the official position of the Kenyan authorities. Police said they had not received reports of an exodus of Burundians, Congolese or Rwandans, nor reports of harassment of the foreigners in question.
The embassy says documentation is also routine
The apparent surge has to be understood alongside an important qualification from the Burundian Embassy.
A source at the embassy told Citizen Digital on September 7 that the mission routinely provides travel documents to Burundian citizens who do not have valid documents or whose documents have expired. The official therefore described the service as a normal consular function rather than something created specifically because of the current political situation.
That explanation does not mean the crowds are unrelated to the current uncertainty. Multiple reports independently observed that the volume of people seeking assistance increased at the same time as anxiety surrounding Kenya’s foreign-trader enforcement intensified. The safest reading of the evidence is therefore that a routine consular service experienced an unusually visible surge amid a rapidly changing political and economic environment.
What President Ruto ordered
The immediate trigger was President William Ruto’s September 2 directive concerning foreign nationals involved in small-scale businesses.
According to reporting by The Star, Ruto directed the government to begin enforcement against foreigners operating small businesses, following concerns raised by Kenyan traders about competition. The directive set September 7 as the point at which enforcement would begin.
The policy has generated concern because small-scale trading is an important source of income for many migrants from neighbouring East African countries.
For people whose livelihoods depend on hawking, small retail operations or informal commerce, the distinction between having permission to reside in Kenya and having the necessary authorisation to conduct a particular business is critical.
A foreign national can therefore have a legitimate immigration status while still facing questions about whether a particular commercial activity is properly licensed or authorised.
Kenya says the crackdown is about documentation, not nationality
The Kenyan government’s subsequent messaging has sought to draw a line between enforcing business and immigration rules and targeting foreigners because of their nationality.
Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary Korir Sing’oei said on September 6 that President Ruto’s remarks had been taken out of context and that Kenya remained open to small and large-scale trade by foreign nationals who meet the applicable legal requirements.
Sing’oei specifically said foreigners with the required work permits and licences are legally protected to operate in Kenya.
The presidency has since announced a temporary 90-day amnesty for undocumented East African nationals to regularise their status. Reuters reported that the government said registered foreigners would continue to have their rights protected, while those without proper documentation would be given time to put their papers in order.
That creates an important distinction between being a foreigner, being undocumented and operating a business without the required authorisation. They are not legally interchangeable categories.
The three situations should not be confused
| Situation | What it means |
|---|---|
| Foreign national legally residing in Kenya | Nationality alone does not make the person’s presence unlawful |
| Foreign national without required immigration documentation | The person may need to regularise their immigration status |
| Foreign national operating a business without required authorisation | Immigration status and business compliance are separate questions |
| Foreign national with appropriate permits and licences | Kenya says such people are legally protected to operate within the scope of their authorisation |
| Person choosing to return to their home country | May seek a passport or emergency travel document from their embassy |
| Person carrying luggage at an embassy | Evidence of preparation or uncertainty, but not by itself proof of forced deportation |
What Kenyan immigration law says about East African citizens
The legal picture is particularly significant because Burundi and Kenya are both members of the East African Community.
The EAC Common Market framework provides for the free movement of persons, workers, services and capital, as well as rights of establishment and residence. The EAC says Partner States are committed to non-discrimination and equal treatment of citizens from other Partner States, although the relevant rights remain subject to national laws and certain limitations.
For workers, the Common Market Protocol provides for movement between Partner States for employment and prohibits discrimination based on nationality in employment and working conditions.
That does not mean every EAC citizen has an unrestricted right to conduct any business in another Partner State without complying with local regulations.
Kenya’s Directorate of Immigration Services currently lists a Class R permit specifically for EAC nationals who intend to reside, work, engage in business or trade, or practise a prescribed profession in Kenya. The official information states that applicants must meet the relevant requirements, including documentation concerning their passport, immigration status and business or employment.
Kenya’s immigration service also states that engaging in business or employment without the requisite permit or pass is an offence.
The legal challenge, therefore, is not simply whether someone is Burundian. It is whether Kenya’s enforcement is being applied consistently with domestic law and the regional commitments governing movement and economic activity within the EAC.
EAC membership does not erase national licensing rules
This is one of the most important points in the current controversy.
The EAC Common Market creates regional rights, but it does not turn every national regulatory requirement into an optional rule. The EAC itself describes free movement as subject to limitations and implementation through national laws and administrative procedures.
Kenya’s immigration system, for example, has a Class R framework for EAC nationals. Its official requirements also recognise business registration and other documentation relevant to the activity being undertaken.
The result is a legal balancing act: Kenya can enforce laws governing immigration, licensing, taxation and business activity, but enforcement involving EAC citizens must also be assessed against Kenya’s regional obligations and constitutional protections.
That tension is now attracting attention from regional legal institutions.
East Africa Law Society raises regional concerns
The East Africa Law Society said the government’s foreign-trader directive had generated panic and uncertainty among regional migrants living in Kenya.
In a statement issued on September 7, the organisation specifically cited the large number of Burundian nationals seeking consular assistance and documentation in Nairobi. It warned that the manner in which the directive is implemented could affect confidence in the EAC integration project.
The concern is broader than the immediate question of who is allowed to sell goods on a Nairobi street.
The EAC’s Common Market is designed around reducing barriers between Partner States. Its framework includes free movement of persons and workers and rights of establishment and residence.
Consequently, any national policy that substantially restricts economic activity by citizens of other EAC states can become a regional integration issue, particularly if enforcement goes beyond people who are actually violating Kenyan law.
Burundi condemns harassment of its citizens
Burundi has now publicly raised concerns over the treatment of its nationals in Kenya.
The EastAfrican reported on September 9 that Burundi condemned harassment of its citizens and called for their protection following the implementation of Kenya’s directive targeting undocumented foreigners involved in petty trade. The report also noted concerns raised by activists about compatibility between restrictions on foreign traders and EAC commitments.
Diplomatic pressure adds another layer to an issue that began as a domestic economic argument.
Kenyan traders have legitimate concerns about competition, licensing, taxation and access to markets. Foreign nationals, meanwhile, have legitimate interests in protection from discrimination, harassment and unlawful interference when they are legally resident and operating within the applicable rules.
A sustainable policy therefore has to distinguish between those two concerns rather than treating them as mutually exclusive.
Why the sight of luggage matters — but does not prove an exodus
Images of people sleeping beside suitcases or standing with mattresses outside an embassy are powerful because they show that uncertainty has tangible consequences.
But photographs cannot establish the reason every person is present.
Some people may have been renewing expired documents. Others may have been obtaining emergency travel papers. Some may have decided to leave Kenya. Others may have been preparing for that possibility while waiting to see how enforcement develops. The available reporting supports all of these possibilities, but does not establish that every Burundian at the embassy was being deported.
The Star also reported that police had not received reports of an exodus of the affected foreign nationals.
That distinction matters for responsible reporting. The images demonstrate fear and uncertainty, while the evidence does not yet establish a mass forced expulsion.
Why Burundian traders are particularly visible in Nairobi
Burundian nationals are among the East Africans who have built livelihoods in Kenya through small-scale commerce and informal economic activity.
Reuters reported that Kenya hosts about 16,000 Burundian refugees and asylum seekers, many of whom are involved in small-scale trading in Nairobi.
That makes a policy focused on foreign small-scale businesses especially consequential for this community.
A trader who loses access to a stall, shop or street-based business does not necessarily lose only an occupation. The consequences can extend to rent, school fees, food, remittances and the ability to support relatives in both Kenya and Burundi.
This helps explain why an announcement about business regulation can rapidly become a question about whether families should remain in the country.
Kenya’s 90-day amnesty changes the immediate picture
The government’s temporary amnesty is an important development because it potentially reduces the immediate pressure on undocumented East Africans.
Rather than requiring undocumented people to leave immediately, the announced 90-day window is intended to give them time to regularise their status. Reuters reported that the government said the measure would allow undocumented East Africans to sort out their documentation while the state continues protecting registered foreign workers.
The practical value of the amnesty will depend on how accessible and predictable the regularisation process is.
If people can obtain clear information, submit applications, secure the appropriate permits and understand which businesses are legally permitted, the policy could reduce uncertainty. If enforcement begins before people understand what documentation is required, however, confusion and fear could persist even during the amnesty period.
What foreign traders in Kenya need to distinguish
The current situation makes documentation particularly important.
Kenya’s Directorate of Immigration Services says work and residence permits are governed by the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act and related regulations. Its system includes specific categories for employment, business and EAC nationals.
For an EAC citizen, the official Class R information provides a route for residence, employment, business and trade, subject to the relevant requirements.
Meanwhile, the Directorate’s Class G framework concerns specific trade, business or consultancy and requires appropriate authorisation, business documentation and other conditions. EAC nationals are listed as eligible for the relevant permit category without the standard issuance fee charged to non-EAC nationals.
This is why a foreign trader should not assume that simply holding a passport, entering Kenya legally or being an EAC citizen automatically authorises every form of commercial activity.
The wider political and economic dispute
The crackdown comes against a backdrop of frustration among Kenyan small-business operators who argue that foreign traders compete with them in markets where local entrepreneurs already face taxation, licensing costs and economic pressure.
Ruto’s administration has framed the intervention around protecting Kenyan traders and ensuring that foreign operators comply with the law. Government officials have simultaneously stressed that properly documented foreign workers and traders remain protected.
Opposition figures and civil-society voices have questioned whether the policy has been communicated and implemented appropriately. Wiper Patriotic Front leader Kalonzo Musyoka, for example, argued that the government should pursue dialogue rather than a crackdown and warned about the economic and diplomatic consequences.
Those political criticisms are opinions rather than established findings. The underlying economic concern raised by Kenyan traders, however, is a genuine policy question: how should a country protect opportunities for citizens while honouring regional integration and the rights of lawfully resident foreigners?
What happens next
The most consequential period will be the implementation of the government’s 90-day regularisation window.
Authorities will need to clarify precisely which categories of foreign traders are affected, what permits or licences are required, how applications will be processed and what protections apply while documentation is being regularised. Foreign nationals will also need reliable information rather than relying on rumours circulating through social media or informal networks.
The government has said that foreigners who meet the legal requirements are protected, while regional organisations are watching whether enforcement respects Kenya’s obligations under the EAC framework.
For Burundian nationals, the embassy remains an important source of consular assistance, particularly for people whose passports have expired, been lost or cannot otherwise be used. But obtaining an emergency travel document should not automatically be interpreted as proof that the Kenyan government has ordered the holder to leave.
The real test is lawful enforcement without collective punishment
The Nairobi embassy queues reveal a serious confidence problem even though they do not establish a mass deportation. When people begin collecting passports, emergency travel documents and luggage because they fear what a government announcement might mean for their livelihood or safety, the policy has already acquired consequences beyond the original dispute over small businesses. Kenya’s challenge now is to demonstrate, through transparent and consistent enforcement, that the target is unlawful activity rather than nationality itself.
The legal framework provides room for Kenya to regulate businesses, immigration status and licensing, but that authority exists alongside constitutional protections and the country’s commitments under the EAC Common Market. Burundi’s reaction and the East Africa Law Society’s intervention show why the issue cannot be treated purely as a domestic enforcement exercise. How Kenya handles the 90-day regularisation period will determine whether the current anxiety subsides into orderly compliance or develops into a deeper diplomatic and regional-integration dispute.