**
Three men, previously deported from the United States to Eswatini, have initiated legal proceedings against the Eswatini government, asserting that their detention violates their human rights. The claimants, who hail from Cuba, Jamaica, and Yemen, argue that their continued imprisonment in Eswatini is unjustified and unlawful. This case highlights the complex issues surrounding deportation practices and human rights in the context of international law.
Deportation and Detention: The Background
The men were part of a group of individuals deported by the US in July 2025 after completing their sentences for various crimes. While two of the men, from Cuba and Yemen, remain incarcerated in Eswatini, the third, Orville Etoria, was repatriated to Jamaica in September 2025. Their legal representatives argue that the men were sent to Eswatini instead of their home countries, resulting in undue hardship and a lack of legal recourse.
The case has been filed with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), an entity of the African Union responsible for monitoring compliance with human rights treaties among member states. Although the commission can advocate for human rights and refer matters to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, it lacks the power to enforce its decisions.
Allegations of Human Rights Violations
Beatrice Njeri, a lawyer representing the detainees through the Global Strategic Litigation Council, has stated that the men have not committed any crimes in Eswatini and are currently subjected to numerous human rights abuses. Reports indicate that they have been denied access to legal counsel and, in one case, a detainee resorted to a 30-day hunger strike, which led to alarming health issues.
Njeri emphasised the frustration of her clients, who are eager to return home or to the US. “They just want to go back – some of them home, some of them to the US,” she noted, underscoring the emotional toll of their indefinite detention.
Government Response and International Context
In response to the claims, Thabile Mdluli, a spokesperson for the Eswatini government, asserted that the kingdom is dedicated to upholding human rights and adhering to international guidelines. She described the detainees not as prisoners but as individuals being “accommodated in a secure environment” while awaiting the completion of necessary administrative processes for their repatriation.
Mdluli refrained from providing a timeline for when each individual would return to their countries of origin, stating it would be premature to speculate on their repatriation.
The US government has faced scrutiny for its controversial deportation practices, particularly during the Trump administration, which aimed to expedite the removal of undocumented immigrants. Eswatini has become one of several African nations, including Ghana and Rwanda, that have accepted deportees from the US, with financial incentives—such as the reported $5.1 million payment to Eswatini for accepting up to 160 deportees—serving as a motivator.
Legal Precedents and Challenges
In a recent ruling, Eswatini’s high court dismissed a case brought forth by local NGOs challenging the constitutionality of the deportees’ detention. The court determined that the applicants lacked the standing to bring the case, as they did not possess a direct interest in the matter. This judgment raises concerns about the legal protections available to non-nationals in Eswatini and the broader implications for human rights within the country.
Why it Matters
This case underscores critical global issues regarding the treatment of deportees and the intersection of national sovereignty and human rights. As countries like the US increasingly resort to third-country deportations, the legal and ethical ramifications of such practices come into sharper focus. The plight of the deported men from Eswatini serves as a reminder of the urgent need for robust international legal frameworks to protect the rights of individuals caught in the web of immigration enforcement. As the world grapples with migration challenges, the outcomes of this case could set significant precedents for the treatment of deportees and the obligations of receiving states under international law.
