Eswatini confirms over $5m from US to accept deportees

Eswatini’s government has confirmed it received more than $5.1 million from the United States 🇺🇸 in return for agreeing to take in up to 160 deportees removed from American soil, deepening a political and legal storm over a secretive third‑country deportation deal that critics say endangers human rights.

Finance Minister Neal Rijkenberg told parliament that the money had already arrived in a state account, but he admitted his ministry was not fully involved while the agreement was being negotiated. “We were told it was for the US deportees after we enquired,” he said, adding that the funds came as a lump sum of just over $5 million.

The agreement and the funds

Under the written agreement, Eswatini committed to accept up to 160 people deported from the United States, in exchange for $5.1 million officially described as support to improve border control and migration management. The payment was sent to an account held by Eswatini’s National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA).

Rijkenberg explained to lawmakers that, despite the money arriving, it cannot legally be spent until it is formally included in the national budget. He promised the finance ministry would “regularize” the process, a pledge that underlined how unusual the channel and purpose of the transfer appear even within the government itself.

Important: The funds are in a state account but are not yet authorized for spending until included in the national budget.

Who has arrived so far

So far, at least 15 men have been sent to Eswatini under the deal, arriving in two groups this year.

• First group: 5 men, landed in July 2025 on a chartered US military aircraft.
  • Countries of origin: Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam, Yemen.
• Second group: 10 deportees, arrived in early October 2025.
  • Countries of origin: Vietnam (3), Philippines (1), Cambodia (1), Chad (1), Cuba (1) and additional unspecified nationalities in that batch.

All but one of those who arrived remain detained at Matsapha Correctional Centre, Eswatini’s maximum‑security prison usually reserved for serious offenders. Authorities say the men are being held while their situations are processed and the legal basis for their stay is clarified.

One notable case: a 62‑year‑old Jamaican man, who had already finished serving a murder sentence in the United States before being flown to Eswatini, was later repatriated to Jamaica in September 2025.

Summary table — arrivals (2025)

Legal challenges and rights concerns

Lawyers and local rights groups argue:

• Many of the men have no ties to Eswatini and therefore should not be locked up in a high‑security prison simply because the United States paid the government to receive them.
• There is no clear domestic law that lets the state detain non‑citizens under this kind of third‑country expulsion scheme.
• Court challenges filed in Eswatini’s High Court question:
  • Whether the detentions are lawful.
  • Whether the deportees were given a chance to contest their removal from the United States or their transfer to a country they had never lived in.
  • Whether the men have been able to claim asylum or other protection, or to contact family and legal representatives.

Human Rights Watch has warned these types of expulsion deals can violate international human rights rules, including bans on arbitrary detention, ill‑treatment, and refoulement (forced return to places of serious harm). The group says sending people to distant third countries with weak safeguards raises serious risks they will be trapped, abused, or sent on again against their will.

Wider context — US third‑country deportation deals

The deal with Eswatini is part of a wider pattern where the United States signs agreements with third countries to accept deportees who either cannot be sent back to their own nations or whom Washington prefers to relocate elsewhere.

• Reported similar arrangements: Rwanda, South Sudan, Ghana, Uganda, Kosovo, Mexico.
• Example: Rwanda reportedly agreed to receive up to 250 deportees from the United States in return for about $7.5 million.

Although the Eswatini agreement is smaller in scale, the controversy is intense because the country is already facing political tension and economic pressure, and because the arrivals were kept secret from the public for months.

Government justification and critics’ concerns

Officials in Mbabane insist the $5.1 million is meant to help strengthen border and migration management, including systems to process and document foreign nationals. They say funds will support technology, training, and infrastructure for overstretched border and migration systems.

Critics counter:

• The way the money was placed in the NDMA account, without prior public explanation, raises fears the United States is effectively paying Eswatini to solve its own deportation problems.
• Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests these deals blur the lines between migration management support and outright outsourcing of deportation responsibilities.
• When small or poorer states receive large sums tied to accepting deportees, it can create pressure to prioritize the agreement over the rights and safety of the people being moved.

Operational and humanitarian issues on the ground

• Most deportees are unable to speak local languages and have restricted phone access, slowing communication with families and lawyers.
• Families and relatives sometimes did not know which country their loved ones had been sent to until weeks after the transfers.
• Legal complaints argue that using a maximum‑security prison for immigration‑related detention contravenes international standards, which state immigration detention should be a last resort and conducted in non‑punitive facilities.

The government has given little detail about how long the men might remain in custody or what options they have. Officials say in court they are finalizing procedures for screening, status determination, and possible onward movement, but no clear public policy has been produced.

Political implications and possible outcomes

Regional analysts say the Eswatini case may test how far richer countries can go in using financial incentives to persuade smaller states to accept their deportation caseloads.

Possible scenarios:
1. If Eswatini courts rule the detentions unlawful, it could discourage other governments from signing similar deals.
2. If the agreement survives legal review, it may encourage more arrangements, intensifying debate over the ethics of third‑country deportations.

For now, the men at Matsapha remain at the centre of a dispute involving money, power, sovereignty, and rights. Eswatini confirms the $5.1 million has been received, but the country still must answer a harder question: what responsibility it bears for the lives and futures of the deportees who arrived on that money’s wings.

Additional note on US deportation process

The United States regularly carries out removals under federal immigration law, with agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement responsible for deporting people who lack legal status or who have been ordered removed by a court. What is different in the Eswatini agreement is that the deportees being flown in appear to have no link to Eswatini, no family in the country, and in some cases no clear path to legal status there.