U.S. Deports 10 More Prisoners to Eswatini Despite Ongoing Legal Fight

U.S. sends second batch of deportees to Eswatini amid legal challenges and diplomatic push

The United States quietly flew a second group of 10 people to Eswatini this week, Eswatini government officials confirmed, deepening a controversial pattern of repatriations to African countries under the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration agenda.

The detainees—reported to include nationals from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Cuba—are being held at Matsapha Maximum Security Correctional Centre near Manzini as authorities work through repatriation procedures, a government spokesperson said. Officials declined to release identifying details, citing privacy and security concerns.

What happened

Eswatini’s acceptance of the group makes it one of several African governments that have entered agreements with Washington to take back migrants and non‑citizens removed from the United States. Other partners have included South Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda and Ghana.

Eswatini’s deal with the U.S. has drawn particular scrutiny. Human Rights Watch and lawyers representing some of the detained people say the arrangement appears to have been secured in exchange for U.S. development and border‑management assistance—reported in recent filings and NGO briefings as roughly $5.1 million—raising questions about coercion, due process and compliance with international law.

Legal and human-rights challenges

Local lawyers and rights groups have challenged the legality of the detentions in Eswatini’s courts, arguing that the transfers and the conditions of custody may violate international protections for asylum seekers and criminals facing repatriation. The claims center on whether agreements were signed with adequate judicial oversight and whether those returned will have access to fair legal review before forced removal.

“We are deeply worried that these people were brought in as part of a security pact, not after a full legal process,” a lawyer representing detainees told a reporter on condition of anonymity, citing fear of reprisal. “Holding them in a maximum-security facility and moving them quickly toward repatriation shuts off meaningful access to lawyers and to rights bodies.”

Eswatini officials, when pressed, said the transfers followed usual deportation channels. “We are cooperating with international partners to manage irregular migration and to ensure public safety,” a government statement read. It did not address specific legal claims.

Why it matters

At stake are questions about how wealthy states are outsourcing the messy politics of migration to poorer partners and what concessions are being made to secure that cooperation. The U.S. approach mirrors a broader global trend in which states facing political pressure at home turn to bilateral deals to reduce the number of migrants on their soil—often trading money, training or other aid for cooperation.

Critics warn these arrangements can erode safeguards. “When migration control becomes a commodity, legal protections become negotiable,” said a migration expert at a European university who requested not to be named because of ongoing research funding ties. “You end up with countries that have limited capacity and weak rule-of-law environments taking on responsibilities for returns without adequate safeguards.”

Local and international response

In Eswatini, a small, landlocked kingdom long criticized by human-rights organizations for restrictions on civil liberties, the transfers have prompted an uneasy debate. Some government ministers frame the deal as strengthening national security and bringing in resources to upgrade borders and law-enforcement capabilities. Others, including advocates and legal practitioners, worry about precedent and the potential human cost.

Human Rights Watch and other NGOs have publicly questioned the terms of the Eswatini‑U.S. arrangement, citing documents and interviews that suggest the funding was intended to bolster border management in return for accepting up to 160 deportees over time. The groups argue that the power imbalance between the two countries makes meaningful consent problematic.

“The international community needs to ask whether the transfer of people across borders—especially when they face possible prosecution or persecution—can be ethically purchased,” said a researcher focused on migration governance. “Transparency is essential.”

Broader implications

The Eswatini case raises a set of hard questions for democracies wrestling with migration politics: How far can or should countries go to keep migrants off their territories? What responsibilities do destination states have to ensure that partners receiving deportees respect human rights and provide fair access to due process? And where does accountability lie when decisions are driven as much by geopolitics as by law?

For Eswatini—known until 2018 by its colonial-era name, Swaziland, and ruled by King Mswati III—the episode could also present reputational risks. International donors and rights monitors are watching whether the country’s institutions can enforce protections for people in its custody, particularly when the transfers are part of externally financed arrangements.

Observers note the transfers fit a wider shift in migration policy. From the Pacific to the Mediterranean, wealthier states have increasingly sought offshore mechanisms to deter arrivals—paying other governments to host migrants, processing asylum claims abroad, or financing border controls. Those strategies may reduce immediate arrivals, but they also raise new legal, moral and diplomatic challenges.

Questions the world must answer

As governments pursue pragmatic deals, the global community must confront difficult dilemmas: Are short-term gains in border control worth potential long-term damage to international norms? How will smaller states balance financial incentives with obligations under human-rights treaties? And perhaps most urgently, who will ensure transparency when deals are struck behind closed doors?

For the 10 people held at Matsapha, the answers will be personal and immediate. For policymakers and rights advocates, the Eswatini transfers offer an early test of how far states will go when migration becomes a bargaining chip—a question that will resonate far beyond the borders of this tiny kingdom.

By News-room
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.