A Distant Land of Detention

Introduction

In the intricate and often opaque world of international migration control, a new and troubling chapter is being written. The United States, in its persistent efforts to enforce its immigration laws, has increasingly resorted to a strategy known as "third-country deportation." This involves the removal of non-citizens not to their countries of origin, but to other nations with which the US has forged agreements. One of the most recent and alarming examples of this policy is the deportation of individuals to the Kingdom of Eswatini, a small, landlocked monarchy in southern Africa. The arrival of a plane carrying Southeast Asian migrants in Eswatini in October 2025 has brought this controversial practice into sharp focus, igniting a wave of condemnation from legal professionals and non-governmental organisations ²¹. They point to a litany of human rights concerns, not least of which is the troubling human rights record of Eswatini itself ^{7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12}. The government of Eswatini has maintained that the deportees will be held in a secure location pending their eventual return to their home countries ^{2, 3, 15, 17}. However, the lack of transparency surrounding the US-Eswatini deal, and the conditions of detention for those already sent there, have raised profound questions about the legality and morality of this burgeoning international arrangement.

The Architecture of Third-Country Deportation

The legal foundation for third-country deportations in the United States is rooted in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ²⁰. This legislation permits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deport individuals to countries other than their country of origin when removal to their home nation is deemed "impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible" ^{6, 20}. Historically, this provision was used sparingly ²⁶. However, the Trump administration has significantly expanded its application, transforming it into a central pillar of its "hardline" and "maximalist" immigration policy ⁶. This has involved striking deals with a growing number of countries across the globe to accept deportees who have no connection to the receiving nation ^{3, 26, 29}.

The concept of a "safe third country" is a well-established, albeit contentious, principle in international asylum policies ^{37, 42}. It posits that asylum seekers can be returned to a country through which they have transited, provided that country is deemed "safe" and offers adequate protection for refugees ^{37, 39}. The United States has pursued "safe third country" agreements with several nations, including Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, under which asylum seekers can be denied protection in the US and removed to one of these partner countries ⁴⁰. These agreements have been heavily criticised for sending vulnerable individuals to countries that are themselves grappling with violence and instability, and which lack the capacity to process asylum claims effectively ⁴⁰.

The recent deportations to African nations, including Eswatini, represent a significant and alarming evolution of this policy. Unlike traditional "safe third country" agreements, which typically involve contiguous or regional partners, these new arrangements involve sending individuals across continents to countries with which they have no prior connection ²⁶. This raises serious questions about the legal and ethical justifications for such removals. Human rights advocates argue that these agreements make African governments "partners in the Trump administration's horrifying violations of immigrants' human rights" ²².

A pivotal moment in the expansion of this policy came in June 2025, when the US Supreme Court, in a divided decision, allowed the Trump administration to restart swift removals of migrants to third countries ^{6, 7, 19, 38}. The court's ruling lifted a lower court order that had required the government to provide individuals with a meaningful opportunity to challenge their deportation on the grounds that they would face danger in the third country ¹⁹. In a powerful dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the court's action exposed "thousands to the risk of torture or death" ¹⁹. This legal victory emboldened the administration to accelerate its third-country deportation programme, with Eswatini emerging as a willing, if controversial, participant.

The Eswatini Agreement: A Veil of Secrecy

The precise terms of the agreement between the United States and Eswatini remain shrouded in secrecy ^{13, 15, 17, 18, 23}. The Eswatini government has stated that the arrangement is the result of "months of robust high-level engagements" with the US government ^{5, 7}. However, it has refused to disclose the specifics of the deal, citing confidentiality ¹⁸. This lack of transparency has been a major point of contention for human rights groups and local activists in Eswatini, who have challenged the constitutionality of the agreement in court ^{13, 14}. They argue that such a significant international agreement should have been presented to and approved by the country's parliament ¹³.

Despite the official silence, some details have emerged. Human Rights Watch has reported that the United States has agreed to provide Eswatini with $5.1 million to enhance its "border and migration management capacity" in exchange for accepting up to 160 deportees ^{22, 36}. Critics view this as a financial incentive for the kingdom to participate in a programme that violates human rights ². The deal has been dubbed the "R10 Billion King Mswati's Deal" in local media, alluding to potential economic benefits for the monarchy ².

The secrecy surrounding the agreement extends to the treatment of the deportees themselves. Lawyers for the men who have been sent to Eswatini have reported being denied proper access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison ^{3, 22, 24, 34}. They have been unable to have private conversations with the deportees, who are only permitted brief, monitored video calls ³⁴. A local lawyer in Eswatini who filed a case demanding access to the men was initially prevented from visiting them ³⁴. Court hearings on the matter have been repeatedly delayed, with a judge failing to appear on one occasion, leading to accusations of stalling tactics by the authorities ^{22, 24}.

The Human Cost: Deportation to a Kingdom in Crisis

The decision to deport individuals to Eswatini is particularly alarming given the country's deeply troubling human rights record ^{7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12}. Eswatini is Africa's last absolute monarchy, ruled by King Mswati III since 1986 ^{8, 10, 16, 28}. The king holds absolute power, controlling the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government ¹⁰. The country has been plagued by social unrest and demands for democratic reforms, which have been met with a brutal crackdown by security forces ^{8, 9, 16, 28}.

Human rights organisations have documented a pattern of serious abuses in Eswatini, including arbitrary or unlawful killings, extrajudicial executions, torture, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment by government forces ^{8, 9, 11, 12}. The government has failed to investigate these abuses, creating a climate of impunity ^{9, 10}. Freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly are severely restricted, and journalists and government critics face harassment, intimidation, and arbitrary arrest ^{9, 11}. The judiciary is not independent, and the government has been accused of weaponizing the legal system to silence dissent ^{8, 11}.

The US State Department's own human rights reports on Eswatini paint a grim picture, corroborating the findings of international human rights groups ^{11, 12}. The 2023 report noted "credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings; torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; [and] political prisoners or detainees" ¹¹. The killing of prominent human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko in January 2023 heightened fears among activists that the government was embarking on a campaign to silence dissent ^{8, 9, 10, 11, 16}.

Against this backdrop, the deportation of individuals to Eswatini raises grave concerns for their safety and well-being. Amnesty International has warned that "anyone returned to this country is at risk of serious human rights violations" ³¹. The fact that the deportees are being held in a maximum-security prison, reportedly in solitary confinement, only amplifies these concerns ^{18, 33, 35}. The prison where the men are being held is also reported to be severely overcrowded, operating at 190% of its capacity ^{13, 14}.

The First Wave: A Precedent of Injustice

The first deportation flight from the United States to Eswatini arrived in July 2025, carrying five men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba, and Yemen ^{2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, 23, 31, 33, 38}. US officials described the men as "uniquely barbaric" and "depraved monsters" who had been convicted of serious crimes, including murder and child rape, and whose home countries had refused to accept them back ^{4, 7, 23, 31, 33, 38}. This dehumanising language was strongly condemned by civil society groups in Eswatini, who called it "stigmatising and dehumanising" ²³.

The lawyers for the five men have contested the US government's narrative, stating that while their clients have criminal convictions, they had all served their sentences and been released in the United States ³⁴. The men had all been in the US since they were children ³⁴. Their sudden deportation to a country they had never been to, without any warning, has been described by their legal representatives as a form of "outsourcing detention" designed to "purge the United States of immigrants and refugees and to make a spectacle of deportations" ³⁴.

The treatment of these first five deportees has set a disturbing precedent. Upon their arrival in Eswatini, they were taken to the Matsapha Correctional Complex, a maximum-security prison, and placed in solitary confinement ^{14, 18, 23, 33, 35}. The Eswatini government has stated that the men are being held "in transit" and that it is working with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to facilitate their repatriation to their home countries ^{2, 4, 5, 18, 35, 41}. However, the IOM has stated that it was not involved in the removal of the migrants from the US and had not been contacted to assist with their return ¹⁸.

One of the five men, Orville Etoria from Jamaica, was eventually repatriated in September 2025 ^{2, 3}. The remaining four men from Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and Yemen remain in detention in Eswatini ²¹. Their lawyers have been fighting a legal battle to gain access to them and to challenge the legality of their detention ^{3, 22, 24, 34}. The case has been fraught with delays and obstacles, which critics see as a deliberate attempt by the Eswatini authorities to avoid scrutiny ^{22, 24}.

The Second Wave and the Escalation of a Controversial Policy

The arrival of a second group of deportees in Eswatini in October 2025 signals a clear escalation of this controversial policy ^{2, 3, 15, 17}. The Eswatini government announced that it was expecting to receive 11 more third-country nationals from the United States during the month ^{2, 3, 15, 17}. A plane carrying a group of Southeast Asian migrants landed in the country early on Monday, 6 October 2025 ^{21, 36}. A US-based lawyer representing two Vietnamese nationals on the flight confirmed their arrival ²¹. He stated that there were at least nine Southeast Asian nationals on board, with a potential total of 11 deportees ²¹.

The Eswatini government's statement on the arrival of the second group of deportees reiterated its position that the individuals would be "kept in a secured area separate from the public, while arrangements are made for their return to their countries of origin" ^{2, 3, 15, 17}. The government also sought to reassure the public that the deportees "pose no security threat to either the Nation or neighbouring countries" ². However, these assurances have done little to quell the growing chorus of criticism from within Eswatini and internationally.

Opposition groups in Eswatini have vehemently condemned the deal with the United States, labelling it "human trafficking disguised as a deportation deal" ^{23, 25}. They have called for the agreement to be made public and suspended pending a genuine public consultation and national dialogue ²³. The deportations have also raised security concerns in neighbouring South Africa ²⁵.

The Broader Context: A Global Strategy of Externalisation

The deportations to Eswatini are not an isolated phenomenon but are part of a broader global strategy by the United States to externalise its immigration enforcement. The Trump administration has sought to strike third-country deportation agreements with numerous countries across the world ^{26, 29}. In addition to Eswatini, the US has also deported individuals to other African nations, including South Sudan, Ghana, and Rwanda ^{3, 22, 36}. It has also sent hundreds of migrants to countries in Central and South America, such as El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama ^{5, 33, 35}.

This strategy of externalisation is not unique to the United States. Other Western nations, most notably the United Kingdom with its controversial plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, have also pursued similar policies. These policies are based on the premise of shifting the "burden" of asylum and migration to third countries, often in the Global South. Critics argue that this approach is a form of "burden shifting" rather than "burden sharing" and that it undermines the international refugee protection regime ³⁷.

The United Nations Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a signatory, prohibits the expulsion of any person to another country where there are "substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture" ^{6, 26}. The deportation of individuals to countries with poor human rights records, such as Eswatini and South Sudan, raises serious questions about the US's compliance with its obligations under international law ^{6, 26, 32}.

The use of third-country deportations is also seen by some as a tactic of deterrence, designed to create fear and uncertainty among undocumented immigrants in the United States and to incentivise "self-deportation" ²⁹. The message being sent is that individuals could be sent to distant and unfamiliar countries, far from their families and communities, with little to no due process ²⁹.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent

The deportation of migrants from the United States to Eswatini represents a deeply troubling development in the global landscape of migration control. It is a policy that is fraught with legal and ethical problems, and one that has a profound human cost. The secretive nature of the agreement between the two countries, the lack of due process for the deportees, and the appalling human rights situation in Eswatini all combine to create a situation that is ripe for abuse.

The international community has a responsibility to hold the United States and Eswatini to account for their actions. The principles of international law, including the prohibition of refoulement and the right to due process, must be upheld. The practice of deporting individuals to third countries with which they have no connection, particularly those with poor human rights records, must be challenged.

The individuals who have been deported to Eswatini are not abstract figures in a geopolitical game; they are human beings with rights and dignity. Their stories must be told, and their voices must be heard. The legal and human rights organisations that are fighting on their behalf deserve our full support. The dangerous precedent that is being set in Eswatini must be resisted, for the sake of the individuals who are directly affected, and for the integrity of the international human rights framework as a whole. The world is watching, and it must not remain silent in the face of this injustice.