US Imprisons 30 Men in Eswatini via $5.1 Million Deportation Deal
Updated
Updated · Tech Times · Aug 12
US Imprisons 30 Men in Eswatini via $5.1 Million Deportation Deal
1 articles · Updated · Tech Times · Aug 12
Summary
Thirty men are now being held in Eswatini's Matsapha prison after the fourth US deportation flight arrived on July 8, expanding a third-country program that has left detainees without charges or clear appeal rights.
The arrangement was designed to move non-deportable immigrants beyond US courts after the 2001 Zadvydas ruling barred indefinite detention on American soil; a federal judge later called the policy unlawful, but the Supreme Court stayed that ruling twice.
Lawyers say many deportees had long finished their sentences and were living freely in the US, while rights groups documented solitary confinement, scarce food, weak medical care and months without in-person legal access.
The Eswatini cases sit inside a wider network that monitors say has sent roughly 22,000 people to at least 26 countries, raising due-process, torture and cost-effectiveness concerns as flights continue.
If most third-country deportees are later sent home, why are people first held in distant prisons like Eswatini?
Why is a Cuban-American plumber still jailed in Eswatini a year after a routine U.S. immigration check-in?
What legal path exists for deportees stranded in offshore detention after transfer to countries with few practical remedies?
Trapped in Limbo: The Human Cost and Geopolitical Fallout of U.S. Third-Country Deportations to Eswatini and Beyond
Overview
The United States paid Eswatini $5.1 million to accept deportees who could not be returned to their home countries, sending 30 individuals on four flights between July 2025 and July 2026. Because Eswatini is not part of the 1951 Refugee Convention, these deportees have no international protections or legal ways to challenge their detention. Efforts to secure legal access led to a Supreme Court ruling in Eswatini, but authorities quickly blocked lawyers from visiting. The deal was made in secrecy, bypassing parliament, and sparked lawsuits from local civil society. This arrangement is part of a wider U.S. strategy of outsourcing deportations to countries with limited oversight and protections.