CAPE TOWN, South Africa (KAAB TV) – In a controversial escalation of its “third‑country” deportation strategy, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed that a flight carrying five convicted criminals landed in Eswatini—marking another chapter in an aggressive immigration enforcement policy initiated by the Trump administration.
At least one of the men was convicted of murder, others for child rape and assault. According to DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, the individuals were “so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back”. The deportees originate from Cuba, Laos, Jamaica, Vietnam, and Yemen.
This marks the second known transfer of U.S. deportees to Africa this month — following eight men deported to South Sudan earlier in July under a similar scheme.
On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court permitted expedited deportations to third countries, contingent only on assurances from the State Department that deportees would remain safe—eliminating the need for case‑by‑case judicial review.
Following this ruling, an ICE memo (dated July 9) authorized deportations with as little as six hours’ notice—though ordinarily a 24-hour notification is provided.
Critics warn that such sweeping measures may undermine legal due process and raise human rights concerns, with deportees potentially sent to nations where oversight is limited.
The Kingdom of Eswatini is a small, absolute monarchy of ~1.1–1.2 million people between South Africa and Mozambique, ruled by King Mswati III.
No official statement has come from Eswatini’s government confirming an agreement with the U.S. on absorbing these deportees.
Local civil society groups have voiced alarm over the secrecy surrounding the operation and the nation’s capacity to house convicted criminals.
A representative from pro‑democracy group SWALIMO emphasized that “this opacity makes it difficult for civic society to understand the implications”.
Eswatini—where political parties are effectively banned and freedom of expression often suppressed—has faced recent scrutiny over human rights violations and governmental transparency.
Activists caution that carrying out such deportations could put strains on the nation’s limited resources and oversight mechanisms .
Voices in Eswatini, including social media, describe the move as treating the country like a “dumping ground” and are calling for immediate parliamentary review and clarity on any U.S. partnership.
The U.S. is reportedly negotiating similar agreements with other African nations, including Rwanda, as part of a policy to relocate migrants outside of the Americas.
In West Africa, Nigeria has reportedly rebuffed American pressure to take in deportees, citing domestic constraints .
In Latin America, the U.S. has already transferred migrants to Costa Rica, Panama, and El Salvador, signaling a trend toward externalizing its border enforcement.
Legal and Ethical Concerns: The truncated deportation process bypasses standard legal frameworks, drawing criticism from human rights groups and UN observers who argue it may conflict with international law .
Domestic Politics: The policy bolsters the administration’s domestic stance on immigration control, but risks backlash at home if deportees face mistreatment abroad .
Diplomatic Fallout: Pressuring poor nations to host criminal deportees may weaken U.S. reputations and relations, especially if civic backlash and protests ensue.
Eswatini’s Response: Local watchdogs are demanding government transparency and full disclosure regarding the deal’s terms. An emergency parliamentary session has been suggested .
U.S. Expansion: Washington is reportedly on track to secure more third‑country deportation pacts, inviting scrutiny from legal analysts, NGOs, and foreign diplomats.
By deploying convicted criminals to Eswatini under a third‑country deportation policy approved by the Supreme Court, the U.S. administration has activated a bold new front in immigration enforcement.
The move raises pressing questions about legality, transparency, and national sovereignty—not least in small nations like Eswatini, whose resources and governance are already strained.