The government of Eswatini has rejected U.S. claims of a deportation agreement, insisting it has not received any request to take in a migrant at the center of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
- Eswatini denied claims of a deportation agreement with the U.S., stating it was not contacted regarding the matter.
- The case involves Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran accused gang member facing deportation amidst legal battles.
- The controversy highlights the U.S.’s use of third-country deportations, sparking global legal and human rights concerns.
- African nations have varied positions on deportation agreements, with some accepting migrants and others rejecting involvement.
The case concerns the deportation of Kilmar Abrego, an accused Salvadoran national who was initially slated for removal to Uganda before U.S. officials shifted the destination to Eswatini in a last-minute change.
Government spokesperson Thabile Mdluli told Reuters that Eswatini had not been contacted about the matter.
She explained that any proposal to send deportees to the kingdom would first require discussions between Washington and Mbabane, and that Eswatini would be formally notified before any process could begin.
Abrego’s Legal Battle Exposes U.S. Deportation Maneuvers
The accused migrant, whose arrest in March and ongoing legal battle to remain in the United States have become a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policy, is originally from El Salvador and is currently being held in an immigration detention center in Virginia.
Abrego was accused of being a gang member and sent to a prison in El Salvador despite a U.S. judge’s order prohibiting his deportation to his native country.
According to his lawyers, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security later notified them in an official email of an arrangement to deport him to Eswatini.
This development followed an earlier plan to transfer him to Uganda, which was rejected after Abrego claimed he feared persecution and torture there.
His case has been marked by repeated court challenges, with his defense team arguing that deportation to certain African nations would expose him to torture and ill-treatment.
At one point, rumors swirled that he was to be sent to Uganda, a claim later dismissed when a U.S. court blocked the move.
The uncertainty surrounding his fate has fueled a broader debate over Washington’s use of third-country arrangements to manage deportations, drawing countries like Eswatini into a controversy they insist they have no part in.
US third-country deportations raise legal questions
Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has advanced stricter immigration policies targeting undocumented migrants, from convicted criminals to those who failed to regularize their stay in the United States.
A central feature of this agenda is the use of “third country” deportations, which involves sending migrants to states where they are not citizens, sometimes after their home countries refuse to accept them.
Several African nations have been drawn into these arrangements, though not all have confirmed participation.
Rwanda has agreed to accept up to 250 deportees under a deal with Washington, with the first group of seven vetted individuals having arrived in Rwanda in mid-August.
South Sudan has received deportees described by U.S. officials as “dangerous criminals,” while Eswatini took in several migrants in July who were held in detention pending repatriation.
Other nations have rejected or distanced themselves from the program.
Uganda has denied striking any agreement with the U.S., stressing it lacks the mandate to host migrants with no legal ties to the country. Nigeria has signaled resistance, and Ghana only recently agreed to accept West African nationals, including Nigerians and Gambians.
The policy has fueled legal and human rights concerns. Reports from Eswatini that deportees were held in solitary confinement drew condemnation from advocates, while lawyers argue that relocating people to countries where they risk persecution or indefinite detention violates both U.S. law and international obligations such as non-refoulement.
Critics warn the secretive nature of these deals risks undermining judicial protections, while exporting America’s immigration battles to Africa.
