(ESWATINI) The United States 🇺🇸 sent a new group of migrants to Eswatini on Monday, October 6, 2025, under a third-country deportation program that remains shrouded in secrecy and controversy. According to rights advocates and lawyers, the 10 deportees who arrived this week are being held in a maximum-security prison, part of an arrangement that has already moved more than 40 deportees to African countries since July. The group includes people from Southeast Asia—named as Vietnam, Laos, and Yemen—along with Cuba and at least one Jamaican national. While the program has been framed as a way to manage difficult removals when home countries refuse returns or present logistical hurdles, critics say the practice raises serious legal and human rights concerns.
Overview of the U.S.-Eswatini Arrangement
Officials have not publicly released the full terms of the U.S.-Eswatini arrangement, which rights advocates describe as a secretive bilateral agreement. Based on legal filings and public statements by advocates, the known elements are:
- Capacity: Eswatini has agreed to receive and hold up to 160 deportees.
- Funding: The United States is providing $5.1 million in support tied to border and migration management.
- Placement practice: Lawyers report that deportees placed under this deal have been held in a maximum-security prison on arrival.
The funding is described as intended to bolster operations, training, and infrastructure linked to border and migration management. In practice, rights groups and lawyers contend that the arrangement has resulted in confinement in high-security settings—even for people who face no criminal charges.
Who Arrived and Where They Are Held
- This week’s transfer: 10 deportees arrived on October 6, 2025.
- Countries of origin (reported): Vietnam, Laos, Yemen, Cuba, and at least one Jamaican.
- Holding location: A maximum-security prison in Eswatini, according to lawyers and rights groups.
- Program scope to date: More than 40 deportees sent to African countries under the program since July 2025.
Important: Rights groups say many detainees are held without criminal charges and have been denied access to normal due-process safeguards.
Geographic Reach and Partner Countries
The third-country placement strategy extends beyond Eswatini. Reported participating or considered countries include:
- South Sudan — received at least six people (limited public detail).
- Rwanda — role less clearly defined in public reports.
- Ghana — handled at least 14 people; participation prompted lawsuits and political debate.
- Uganda — was considered but withdrew after criticism.
- Nigeria — refused to participate, stating it will accept only its own nationals.
VisaVerge.com analysis suggests the quiet expansion of these placements has produced diplomatic ripple effects, as governments weigh domestic politics, legal risks, and ties with Washington.
Detention Conditions and Legal Concerns
Lawyers and human rights organizations raise multiple concerns:
- Use of maximum-security custody: Eswatini has placed deportees in a facility and under restrictions that lawyers say mirror punitive prison settings despite many detainees facing no criminal charges.
- Access to counsel and due process: Reports indicate some deportees have had trouble contacting lawyers, obtaining translators, or pursuing legal challenges to their transfers.
- Indefinite or open-ended detention: Without published terms, there is little clarity about time limits or review mechanisms for custody.
- Geographic and communication barriers: Being sent far from family and legal networks may impede protection claims and legal defense.
- Normalization risk: Rights groups warn that defaulting to high-security detention for administrative transfers could erode safeguards and normalise harsh measures.
Quote/Key takeaway: Lawyers say detention in such a facility is a severe measure that should be reserved for people who pose a clear danger, not for civil detainees with no criminal charges.
Legal and Diplomatic Reactions
- Several African governments have pushed back or limited involvement, citing legal and political concerns.
- Ghana’s participation prompted court challenges and internal debate about compatibility with local law and international norms.
- Nigeria has publicly stated it will accept only its own nationals.
- Civil society and defense lawyers demand transparency—calling for release of the bilateral texts and clarity on safeguards, oversight, and legal remedies.
Effects on Families and Individuals
- Families risk becoming cut off: parents and relatives may lose phone access, face language barriers, and have trouble receiving legal updates.
- Protection claims in the United States can become harder to pursue from abroad, especially from a maximum-security facility.
- Each day in high-security custody carries human costs: isolation, limited legal contact, and the potential for missed legal deadlines.
Policy Rationale and Criticism
U.S. officials frame the policy as a mechanism to complete removals when direct returns are blocked by diplomatic or logistical barriers—such as difficulty obtaining travel documents or origin-state refusals. Supporters argue funding and managed facilities can reduce irregular onward movement.
Critics counter that:
– Financial support cannot substitute for legal safeguards.
– Detaining people by default in maximum-security prisons is a red flag, not an orderly solution.
– The practice shifts burdens to partner governments that may lack resources and oversight capacity.
Outstanding Questions Advocates Want Answered
Rights organizations and defense lawyers continue to press for public answers to key questions:
- Are there time limits on detention in Eswatini?
- Do deportees have guaranteed access to counsel, translators, and regular judicial review?
- Can deportees seek asylum or other protection in the receiving country?
- Are there pathways out of high-security custody for people who pose no risk?
- What independent oversight or accountability mechanisms exist?
Without the published bilateral terms, these questions remain open and detainees remain confined.
Wider African Context and Current Counts
- Eswatini: now the most prominent receiving country under this framework, with 10 deportees added this week.
- Program total since July: more than 40 deportees sent to African countries.
- Ghana: at least 14 handled, with legal and political fallout.
- South Sudan: at least 6 received.
- Rwanda: participation reported but details limited.
- Nigeria and Uganda: examples of refusal or withdrawal under domestic pressure.
Where to Find Official U.S. Removal Guidance
For general information on U.S. removal procedures (which does not include confidential bilateral terms), readers can consult the U.S. government’s overview at the ICE Removal Operations page:
This resource sets out how removals typically work under U.S. law but does not detail the secret third-country agreements at issue here.
Conclusion and Stakes Ahead
The Eswatini arrangement—capacity for up to 160 deportees and $5.1 million in U.S. support—signals Washington’s intent to continue removals when direct returns are blocked. Whether the model expands or contracts will likely depend on:
- Court challenges and legal rulings
- Diplomatic pressure and public opinion in partner countries
- The willingness of governments to accept non-citizens with no ties to their soil
- Demands for transparency, time limits, and independent oversight
VisaVerge.com reports that Eswatini’s prominence in this program has intensified scrutiny. With lives affected and legal questions unanswered, the central debate now is not whether transfers occur—they already are—but whether those moved will have fair processes while confined in a maximum-security prison far from home.
This Article in a Nutshell
On October 6, 2025, the U.S. transferred 10 migrants to Eswatini under a confidential third-country deportation program that has already moved more than 40 people to African countries since July. Eswatini agreed to accept up to 160 deportees and to receive $5.1 million from the U.S. tied to border and migration management. Lawyers and human rights groups report transfers result in confinement in a maximum-security prison, restricted access to counsel and translators, and unclear time limits or review procedures. The program has prompted legal challenges, diplomatic pushback from several African states, and urgent calls for transparency, oversight, and safeguards to protect detainees’ rights.
