First set of US migrants to tiny African nation wins crucial court case 9 months after deportation

A court in Eswatini has ruled that the first five migrants transferred from the United States under a Trump-era third-country deportation arrangement must be granted access to legal representation.

• An Eswatini court ruled that five migrants deported from the US must have access to legal representation, highlighting due process concerns.
• The migrants, from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba, and Yemen, were transferred under a Trump-era third-country deportation policy.
• The court rejected Eswatini authorities' argument that the detainees hadn't specifically requested a lawyer and emphasized legal rights for all detainees.
• Rights groups in both Eswatini and the US challenge the legality of US deals to outsource deportations, arguing they create legal and human rights issues.

On July 16 2025, a deportation flight carrying five men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen, each convicted of crimes in the United States landed in Eswatini, the last remaining African monarchy governed by an absolute ruler.

In a statement, Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary at the US Department of Homeland Security, said the deportation flight to Eswatini removed “individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back.”

She confirmed the five men were nationals of Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen, without disclosing their names.

The transfers formed part of Trump’s “third-country” deportation policy, aimed at removing individuals whose home countries were unwilling to accept them back.

The ruling, delivered by a three-judge panel and reviewed by Reuters, rejected arguments from Eswatini authorities that the detainees had not specifically requested representation from human rights lawyer Sibusiso Nhlabatsi.

The court said there could be “no real harm in granting the Respondent access to the detainees,” adding that if they did not wish to see him, they could say so directly.

The judges further stated that denying access undermined due process, stressing that legal representation is a fundamental safeguard even in immigration detention cases involving third-country transfers.

Rising legal scrutiny over third-country deportations

The case centres on migrants among at least 19 individuals deported from the United States to Eswatini under an arrangement linked to the Trump administration’s broader immigration enforcement strategy.

The group includes nationals from Africa, Asia and the Americas, reflecting the increasingly global scope of U.S. deportation outsourcing.

Rights lawyers in Eswatini and the United States have challenged the legality of the arrangement, including a reported $5.1 million deal between Washington and Mbabane, arguing it creates legal grey zones where detainees are held outside their home countries after serving sentences or facing removal orders in the U.S.

Although the Eswatini High Court previously dismissed a broader challenge to the deal itself, the latest ruling applies specifically to the first five arrivals and could influence future legal actions involving the remaining detainees.

African states and the expansion of deportation partnerships

Eswatini is among a growing number of African countries linked to U.S. third-country migration arrangements, including Rwanda, South Sudan, Ghana, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo, which have either signed agreements or been reported in cooperation frameworks with Washington.

These deals have triggered criticism from human rights organisations, who warn they risk turning African detention systems into extensions of U.S. immigration enforcement.

Analysts say African states are attractive partners due to diplomatic leverage, security cooperation incentives, and lower political resistance to hosting deportees.

However, critics argue the approach raises ethical and legal concerns, particularly regarding detention conditions and access to justice.

The ruling adds momentum to growing scrutiny of the policy, highlighting tensions between migration control objectives and international due process standards.