Nigeria is attempting to shift its displacement response from an aid-dependent emergency model towards development finance, economic inclusion and longer-term reconstruction.
At the 77th session of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva, Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, Dr Bernard Doro, urged the UN refugee agency to explore partnerships with the African Development Bank and the ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development.
The proposal reflects an increasingly uncomfortable reality. Humanitarian needs are rising across Africa while donor funding is becoming less predictable. For countries hosting refugees and millions of internally displaced people, the traditional system of emergency grants, food distributions and temporary shelters is no longer sufficient for crises that often last for years.
Doro told the meeting that more than 7,000 Nigerian refugees had voluntarily returned home in 2026 under tripartite arrangements involving Nigeria, host countries and UNHCR.
Another 14,000 Nigerians in Cameroon have registered their intention to return, while an agreement covering approximately 2,000 refugees in Niger is being finalised.
Those numbers represent progress, but they should be interpreted carefully. Registration to return is not the same as physical repatriation, while an agreement under negotiation is not yet a completed movement. More importantly, crossing the border into Nigeria does not automatically amount to successful reintegration.
The test begins after the convoy arrives.
Nigeria’s Double Displacement Burden
Nigeria occupies both sides of Africa’s displacement crisis. It is a country of origin for citizens who have fled insurgency and insecurity into Cameroon, Chad and Niger. It is also a host country for people escaping persecution and instability elsewhere.
According to the government’s September 2026 figures, Nigeria hosts more than 142,000 refugees and asylum seekers from 42 countries. It has received more than 24,000 returnees and is managing more than 6.7 million internally displaced persons.
Doro thanked Cameroon, Chad and Niger for accommodating Nigerians displaced by insecurity and humanitarian emergencies. That recognition matters because host communities frequently absorb costs that are not fully captured in international appeals: additional pressure on schools, hospitals, water systems, farmland, housing and local employment.
There is, however, a significant data question. The Federal Government’s estimate of more than 6.7 million internally displaced people is substantially higher than the figure of over 3.6 million carried in UNHCR’s public Nigeria profile.
The difference may arise from reference dates, geographic coverage, registration methods or whether flood- and climate-related displacement is included alongside conflict displacement. Nigeria should publish a reconciled, state-by-state breakdown explaining who is counted, when the data were collected and which agencies verified the records.
Without a credible baseline, it is difficult to plan budgets, determine financing needs, prevent duplication or measure whether people have been sustainably reintegrated.
From Humanitarian Aid to Development Finance
Nigeria’s proposal to bring AfDB and EBID into the refugee-financing architecture is strategically sound—provided the institutions are used for the right purposes.
Humanitarian agencies are designed principally to protect life, provide emergency assistance and uphold the rights of displaced people. Development banks, by contrast, can finance infrastructure, public services, agricultural systems, digital platforms, enterprise development and regional economic integration.
The opportunity is therefore not to ask development banks to replace emergency relief. It is to finance the systems that make prolonged relief less necessary.
That could include water and sanitation infrastructure in host communities, schools serving both refugees and local children, healthcare facilities, renewable-energy systems, agricultural value chains, affordable housing, rural roads, digital identity infrastructure and credit programmes for displaced entrepreneurs.
A refugee settlement that depends permanently on donated food remains vulnerable. A host community with reliable electricity, functioning markets, schools, clinics and productive employment has a stronger chance of supporting both residents and newcomers.
This is where development finance could change the economics of displacement.
But the structure of that financing will be critical. Nigeria should resist converting humanitarian obligations into expensive sovereign debt. Programmes benefiting displaced populations should rely heavily on grants, highly concessional funding, blended-finance structures, guarantees and results-based instruments.
Commercial lending may be appropriate for viable infrastructure and enterprise projects, but protection, documentation and emergency assistance remain public and humanitarian responsibilities. Vulnerable people should not become the justification for borrowing that produces little measurable benefit for them.
Return Must Be Voluntary—and Sustainable
Doro said improving security in some affected communities was creating conditions for refugees and internally displaced people to return. He also reported that resettlement communities had been established in seven locations to facilitate gradual camp closures.
The emphasis on safety, dignity and voluntary movement is important. Nigeria has previously faced concerns that camp closures or resettlement decisions could move people faster than security, housing and livelihoods were restored.
A newly constructed settlement is not automatically a durable solution.
For return to endure, families need secure housing or land tenure, schools for their children, healthcare, transport, documentation, income opportunities and confidence that armed groups will not force them to flee again.
The government should therefore publish measurable reintegration indicators for every resettlement location. These should include school enrolment, access to primary healthcare, household income, employment, land rights, food security, security incidents and the number of people who become displaced again after returning.
Success should not be measured by camps closed or buses dispatched. It should be measured by families that remain safely and productively resettled.
Digital Identity Could Unlock Economic Inclusion
Nigeria is also working with UNHCR to develop a digital gateway through which refugees can securely obtain information and access services.
The government says displaced people and host communities are being enrolled in the national identity system, potentially improving their access to banking, education, healthcare and social-support programmes. Ten mobile documentation vehicles are expected to take identity services to remote communities.
This could become one of the most consequential elements of the programme.
A person without recognised identification can be effectively excluded from the formal economy. The individual may struggle to open a bank account, receive digital payments, register a business, obtain telecommunications services, enrol in school or prove eligibility for government assistance.
Identity inclusion can therefore turn displaced people from invisible aid recipients into economically active participants.
For banks, fintech companies and mobile-money providers, the opportunity is to develop responsible, low-cost products compatible with refugee documentation and proportionate know-your-customer requirements. Insurers could design basic health, crop and livelihood protection, while telecommunications companies could support connectivity and verified digital access.
These opportunities carry significant responsibilities. Refugee data are exceptionally sensitive. Digital platforms must be built around consent, cybersecurity, limited data collection and clear rules preventing information from being used for surveillance, discrimination or involuntary return.
Technology should expand protection—not merely improve administrative control.
Livelihoods Are the Real Exit from Dependency
Doro said refugees in five states had received land, agricultural inputs and vocational training. The National Commission for Refugees, Migrants and Internally Displaced Persons has also created a public-private partnership department to expand economic opportunities.
The direction is encouraging. Agricultural inputs, however, will achieve little without secure land access, extension services, storage, irrigation, transport and predictable markets. Vocational training will have limited impact if it is disconnected from employers, apprenticeships, credit and actual demand.
The private sector should not be invited merely to donate materials or stage ceremonial empowerment programmes. Businesses should be integrated into commercially credible value chains capable of absorbing labour and sustaining incomes.
That could include structured outgrower schemes, food processing, construction skills, solar installation, textiles, logistics, waste recovery and digitally enabled services.
Former Liberian and Sierra Leonean refugees who have established businesses in Nigeria demonstrate what local integration can achieve when protection is combined with economic opportunity.
The strongest measure of humanitarian success is not how many people receive assistance. It is how many eventually no longer require it.
Market and Investor Implications
Protracted displacement is not only a humanitarian issue. It affects food production, labour markets, urban housing, fiscal spending, security risk and investor confidence.
Communities with large numbers of unemployed and poorly supported displaced people can face greater social tension and pressure on already weak public infrastructure. By contrast, well-designed integration and reconstruction programmes can expand local markets, create jobs and reduce the economic conditions that allow insecurity to persist.
For development institutions and private investors, viable opportunities exist in affordable housing, mini-grids, agricultural processing, healthcare, water infrastructure, digital payments, identity technology and vocational education.
Such investments require strong safeguards. Procurement should be transparent, beneficiaries should participate in project design and independently verified outcomes should determine whether programmes are expanded.
“Refugee finance” must not become a new label for politically connected contracts or infrastructure that looks impressive but does not improve household security and income.
Brand and Reputation Implications
Nigeria’s diplomatic brand will benefit if it can demonstrate that refugee protection, economic inclusion and national security can reinforce one another.
The reputational risk lies in overclaiming results. Announcing return figures without tracking reintegration, celebrating camp closures without proving safety or promoting digital identity without adequate privacy safeguards could undermine trust.
AfDB and EBID also face brand risks. Their participation would attract greater scrutiny of how projects are selected, how money is disbursed and whether host communities benefit alongside displaced populations.
Credibility will depend on transparency: clear financing instruments, published implementation partners, independently audited spending and public outcome dashboards.
International Responsibility Cannot End at Nigeria’s Borders
Doro called on other countries to recognise Nigeria’s Convention Travel Documents and facilitate visas for eligible holders. He also sought expanded international resettlement opportunities and complementary pathways.
That request speaks to the principle of responsibility-sharing. Countries close to conflict zones usually accommodate the largest numbers of displaced people, while wealthier states frequently provide funding but accept comparatively fewer refugees.
Nigeria’s appeal should therefore be understood as more than a request for money. It is a demand for a broader distribution of obligations—financing, legal mobility, resettlement, education and employment pathways.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Dr Barham Salih, welcomed Nigeria’s initiatives, particularly the resettlement communities, digital services, documentation programme and efforts to strengthen national protection systems.
The next step is to convert diplomatic approval into structured programmes with funding, timelines, safeguards and independently measurable outcomes.
BRANDECONOMY Insight
Nigeria is right to seek development-bank participation in its displacement response. Refugee emergencies that persist for a decade cannot be managed indefinitely through tents, food distributions and annual appeals.
Yet development finance is not automatically developmental.
If AfDB and EBID become involved, their capital should build assets that refugees, returnees and host communities can use long after humanitarian agencies leave: schools, healthcare, water systems, renewable energy, agricultural value chains, housing, digital identity and productive employment.
The financing should also be concessional enough to avoid transferring the cost of regional insecurity onto Nigeria’s already pressured public balance sheet.
Most importantly, the return of 7,000 citizens should not be presented as the end of a humanitarian journey. It is the beginning of a more difficult economic one.
A returnee without security, shelter, legal identity or income remains only one shock away from displacement again. The real dividend will come when returnees become workers, farmers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers and stable members of functioning communities.
Nigeria’s challenge is therefore not simply to bring people home. It is to make home viable.
