News Desk
Eswatini, Africa’s last absolute monarchy, has once again become the center of an international debate on migration after receiving its third batch of migrants deported from the United States. The latest group of four individuals, arriving on March 12, brings the total number of deportees sent to the small southern African nation to at least 19 since July, highlighting the increasingly controversial practice of third-country deportations.
According to Eswatini’s government, the newest deportees include one person from Tanzania, one from Sudan, and two from Somalia. Authorities have confirmed that efforts are underway to repatriate these individuals to their countries of origin. While the government emphasized its commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of all deportees, human rights advocates have expressed serious concerns about the conditions in which they are being held.
The arrival of these migrants follows an agreement struck between Eswatini and the administration of US President Donald Trump. Under this arrangement, Eswatini has agreed to host third-country nationals-foreigners who have no established ties to the United States or Eswatini-pending their eventual repatriation. The deal has reportedly included a financial component, with Eswatini receiving $5.1 million from Washington as compensation for hosting the deportees.
The Trump administration’s push for such agreements forms part of a broader hardline immigration agenda. Since returning to office, Trump has reinstated a range of restrictive immigration measures, fulfilling campaign promises to reverse the “open border” policies of his predecessor, President Joe Biden. Central to this policy shift was a Supreme Court ruling that lifted restrictions on deporting migrants to countries with which they have no apparent connections. This ruling allowed the United States to pursue a strategy of transferring individuals to third-party nations, including a number of African states.
Eswatini is not alone in participating in this arrangement. Several African nations, including Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Rwanda, Uganda, Cameroon, and South Sudan, have agreed to accept foreign deportees from the United States. In some cases, these agreements have come with substantial financial compensation. For instance, Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda each received $7.5 million to host non-citizen deportees, according to Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen.
The practice, however, has sparked widespread criticism across the African continent. The African Union (AU) has repeatedly voiced concerns that Western governments are effectively outsourcing their migration and asylum responsibilities to African nations. African human rights bodies have warned that such deals risk exposing vulnerable migrants to heightened dangers, including arbitrary detention, restricted access to legal counsel, and the possibility of being sent to countries where they could face persecution.
In Eswatini, these concerns are already manifesting on the ground. Reports indicate that several deportees who had completed their sentences in the United States are being held in the country’s maximum-security prison while awaiting repatriation. Lawyers and human rights advocates argue that conditions in these facilities are inadequate and that the detainees’ rights are not being sufficiently safeguarded. Eswatini’s government, however, maintains that it is committed to ensuring humane treatment and that the deportees’ dignity is respected during their stay.
The controversy surrounding third-country deportations extends beyond Eswatini. In Cameroon, for example, multiple media outlets reported that the United States secretly deported migrants who had no connection to the Central African nation, some of whom had legal protections against removal. A group of eight migrants arrived in Cameroon’s capital, Yaoundé, in early March, weeks after nine others had been flown there in January under what US officials described as a third-country deportation program. Several of these individuals had previously been granted protection orders by US immigration judges due to fears of persecution in their home countries.
The deportees’ arrival in Cameroon was reportedly abrupt and coercive. According to the New York Times, the migrants were flown from Louisiana to Cameroon without being informed of their destination, placed in handcuffs, and restrained with chains during the journey. Neither the United States nor Cameroon disclosed any formal public agreement facilitating these transfers, and Cameroonian authorities have yet to comment on the presence of the deportees within their territory.
Eswatini’s first batch of third-country deportees arrived in July, comprising five individuals described by the US Department of Homeland Security as “uniquely barbaric criminals” from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba, and Yemen. The second group arrived in October, bringing the total number of deportees to 15 before the latest four arrived in March. Each batch has fueled domestic debates within Eswatini, particularly regarding the nation’s capacity to accommodate migrants who have no historical or cultural ties to the country.
The financial incentives offered by the United States appear to be a key motivator for participation by African states. In exchange for accepting deportees, countries like Eswatini, Rwanda, and Equatorial Guinea have received millions of dollars, ostensibly to offset costs associated with housing, feeding, and eventually repatriating the migrants. Critics argue, however, that these payments may create moral and political dilemmas, effectively turning vulnerable migrants into commodities in an international negotiation.
Human rights organizations have repeatedly called for greater transparency regarding these agreements and the conditions under which deportees are held. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, an AU body, issued warnings late last year that such accords could expose migrants to serious rights violations. These concerns echo broader apprehensions about the outsourcing of migration responsibilities, which may place undue burdens on countries with limited infrastructure and resources.
Despite the protests and international scrutiny, Eswatini’s government insists that it remains committed to complying with its obligations under the agreement while protecting the fundamental rights of the individuals in its custody. In a statement issued on March 12, authorities emphasized that the kingdom will continue to ensure that the rights and dignity of third-country nationals are upheld, even as efforts to repatriate them continue.
The situation in Eswatini and other African nations participating in third-country deportation programs highlights a growing tension in global migration policy. Western countries, particularly the United States under Trump, appear increasingly willing to shift their asylum and deportation responsibilities abroad. Meanwhile, African nations face the complex challenge of balancing financial incentives against domestic legal obligations and the ethical treatment of migrants.
As the international community monitors these developments, questions persist about the long-term implications for both deported individuals and the countries that host them. Without adequate oversight, protections, and transparency, critics warn that these practices could set troubling precedents, potentially undermining human rights standards and fueling further disputes between states over the responsibilities associated with global migration.
In conclusion, Eswatini’s receipt of its third group of US-deported migrants underscores the broader debate on third-country deportations and the outsourcing of migration responsibilities. While financial incentives have encouraged African nations to participate, human rights concerns and domestic protests highlight the ethical and legal dilemmas inherent in these arrangements. With additional African countries reportedly participating in similar agreements, the question of how to balance national interests, migrant protections, and international obligations is set to remain a contentious issue in global migration policy.
