US sends child rapist and violent offenders to Eswatini: Should SA be worried?
The US this week deported five hardened criminals to Eswatini under a 'safe third-country deportation' policy, a decision that has sparked significant concern within international diplomatic circles.
The five men, from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen, are incarcerated for serious crimes ranging from child rape to murder, battery of a police officer and grand theft auto.
Tricia McLaughlin, US assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, posted on X, describing the men as 'so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back'.
NEW: a safe third country deportation flight to Eswatini in Southern Africa has landed— This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back.
These depraved monsters have been terrorizing American communities but thanks to @POTUS… pic.twitter.com/TsanIX8H4T
— Tricia McLaughlin (@TriciaOhio) July 16, 2025
Eswatini has confirmed that the men have arrived in the country and that they are being kept at correctional facilities.
'Government has, however, acknowledged the security concerns of emaSwati, further confirming that indeed, the five prisoners are in the country and are housed in correctional facilities within isolated units, 'where similar offenders are kept',' the Eswatini government posted on X.
Government has assured emaSwati that the arrival of five third-country deportees from the United States of America poses no security threat to the Nation.
— Eswatini Government (@EswatiniGovern1) July 16, 2025
Caxton Local Media approached Dr Sonja Theron, a lecturer in security studies at the Department of Political Sciences at the University of Pretoria, to provide context and assess the possible impact of the deportation on South Africa.
What is a safe third-country deportation?
Theron explains that a safe third-country deportation refers to the practice of a deporting country, in this case the US, sending a deportee to a 'third' country instead of their country of citizenship.
'This usually occurs either when the country of citizenship refuses to co-operate with the deportation of the citizen, or when the country of citizenship is not safe for the deportee to return to.
'The word 'safe' is meant to indicate that the 'third country' is safe for the deportee, usually meaning that the deportee will not be killed, face torture or encounter other grave human rights violations,' says Theron.
Could Eswatini say no?
Theron says that, in principle, Eswatini had a choice in accepting the men as no country can be forced to take in deportees.
'However, the power dynamics between a country like the US and Eswatini are important to consider. The US holds much more bargaining power and can compel a country to accept deportees using economic and political incentives or threats.'
She says messaging from the Nigerian government has suggested that the US has been pressuring a variety of African countries to accept deportees, using this strategy.
Why would Eswatini agree to the deportation?
According to Theron, it is likely that a bargain was struck between Eswatini and the US.
'This could involve promises of reduced tariffs or threatening Eswatini with increased tariffs, promises to cut or increase aid, or any number of political and economic incentives. Unfortunately, in this case, the details of the deal have not been released.'
Is this a security threat for South Africa?
Several South African towns and communities, including Barberton, Mkhondo and Pongola, closely border Eswatini. This raises the question of whether South Africans should be worried about the deportation.
Theron says relative to the many security threats faced by South Africa, this is not significant enough to warrant panic or widespread fear.
However, if this becomes a pattern, with massive numbers of deportees being sent to Eswatini, it would require more attention.
'What is more concerning is that this is further evidence of the current US administration's trend towards intimidation rather than co-operation when dealing with the African continent. African states need to ensure they maintain their agency when working with the US.'
Is safe third-country deportation a common practice?
According to Theron, this kind of deportation is rare.
'Only a handful of countries have practised or tried to practise this, and it almost always comes hand in hand with controversy.'
She says other notable examples include the UK's scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, which was cancelled, and Australia's practice of housing asylum seekers in offshore detention facilities.
How is this kind of deportation viewed in the international relations and law realm?
Theron explains that international law primarily deals with this in the context of asylum seekers (which is different from the Eswatini case).
'In this situation, 'refoulement', which entails returning a refugee to a country where they could be killed or persecuted, is prohibited. Therefore, as long as the 'third country' is considered safe, it is legal. Safety, however, is relative and legally open to interpretation.'
She says the deportation of prisoners, as in the case in Eswatini, is mostly a bilateral agreement that is governed by the laws of the two countries involved.
'Both cases are generally frowned upon and generate criticism for a variety of reasons. In practice, safe third-country deportation of asylum seekers often results in refugees being held in poor, often inhumane, conditions for extended periods (as seen in the controversy around Australia's offshore immigration facilities).'
She says in the case of the deportation of prisoners, both the possibility of human rights violations of the prisoners and the impact on the receiving country have raised concerns.
Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel.
Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal.
Read original story on www.citizen.co.za
At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US Justice Department's hardened efforts to denaturalise citizens is likely to violate constitutional rights
An aggressive new directive has millions of Americans who became legal citizens through the naturalisation process living in fear of having their citizenship revoked. The Trump administration wants to take away citizenship from naturalised Americans on a massive scale. Although a recent US Justice Department memo prioritises national security cases, it directs employees to 'maximally pursue denaturalisation proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence' across 10 broad priority categories. Denaturalisation is different from deportation, which removes non-citizens from the country. With civil denaturalisation, the government files a lawsuit to strip people's US citizenship after they have become citizens, turning them back into non-citizens who can then be deported. The government can only do this in specific situations. It must prove someone ' illegally procured ' citizenship by not meeting the requirements, or that they lied or hid important facts during the citizenship process. The Trump administration's 'maximal enforcement' approach means pursuing any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, regardless of priority level or strength of evidence. As our earlier research documented, this has already led to cases like that of Baljinder Singh, whose citizenship was revoked based on a name discrepancy that could easily have resulted from a translator's error rather than intentional fraud. A brief history For most of American history, taking away citizenship has been rare. But it increased dramatically in the 1940s and 1950s during the Red Scare period characterised by intense suspicion of communism. The US government targeted people it thought were communists or Nazi supporters. Between 1907 and 1967, more than 22,000 Americans lost their citizenship this way. Everything changed in 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Afroyim v Rusk. The court said the government usually cannot take away citizenship without the person's consent. It left open only cases involving fraud during the citizenship process. After this decision, denaturalisation became extremely rare. From 1968 to 2013, fewer than 150 people lost their citizenship. They were mostly war criminals who had hidden their past. How the process works In criminal lawsuits, defendants get free lawyers if they can't afford one. They get jury trials. The government must prove guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' – the highest standard of proof. But in most denaturalisation cases, the government files a civil suit, in which none of these protections exists. People facing denaturalisation get no free lawyer, meaning poor defendants often face the government alone. There's no jury trial – just a judge deciding whether someone deserves to remain American. The burden of proof is lower – 'clear and convincing evidence' instead of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Most important, there's no time limit, so the government can go back decades to build cases. As law professors who study citizenship, we believe this system violates basic constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has called citizenship a fundamental right. Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958 described it as the ' right to have rights.' In our reading of the law, taking away such a fundamental right through civil procedures that lack basic constitutional protection – no right to counsel for those who can't afford it, no jury trial and a lower burden of proof – seems to violate the due process of law required by the constitution. The bigger problem is what citizenship-stripping policy does to democracy. When the government can strip citizenship from naturalised Americans for decades-old conduct through civil procedures with minimal due process protection – pursuing cases based on evidence that might not meet criminal standards – it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. This creates a system where naturalised citizens face vulnerability that can last their entire lives, potentially chilling their full participation in American democracy. The Justice Department memo establishes 10 priority categories for denaturalisation cases. They range from national security threats and war crimes to various forms of fraud, financial crimes and, most importantly, any other cases it deems 'sufficiently important to pursue'. This 'maximal enforcement' approach means pursuing not just clear cases of fraud, but also any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, no matter how weak or old the evidence is. This creates fear throughout immigrant communities. About 20 million naturalised Americans now must worry that any mistake in their decades-old immigration paperwork could cost them their citizenship. A two-tier system This policy effectively creates two different types of American citizens. Native-born Americans never have to worry about losing their citizenship, no matter what they do. But naturalised Americans face vulnerability that can last their entire lives. This has already happened. A woman who became a naturalised citizen in 2007 helped her boss with paperwork that was later used in fraud. She cooperated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was characterised by prosecutors as only a 'minimal participant', completed her sentence and still faced losing her citizenship decades later because she didn't report the crime on her citizenship application – even though she hadn't been charged at the time. The Justice Department's directive to 'maximally pursue' cases across 10 broad categories – combined with the first Trump administration's efforts to review more than 700,000 naturalisation files – represents an unprecedented expansion of denaturalisation efforts. The policy will almost certainly face legal challenges on constitutional grounds, but the damage may already be done. When naturalised citizens fear that their status could be revoked, it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. The Supreme Court, in Afroyim v Rusk, was focused on protecting existing citizens from losing their citizenship. The constitutional principle behind that decision – that citizenship is a fundamental right that can't be arbitrarily taken away by whoever happens to be in power – applies equally to how the government handles denaturalisation cases today. The Trump administration's directive, combined with court procedures that lack basic constitutional protections, risks creating a system that the Afroyim v Rusk decision sought to prevent – one where, as the Supreme Court said: 'A group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.' DM First published by The Conversation. Cassandra Burke Robertson is professor of law and director of the Center for Professional Ethics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Irina D Manta is professor of law and director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York. This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
Eyewitness News
3 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
'Trump before Trump': Orban's illiberal model on show
At the American embassy in Budapest, the atmosphere has changed since US President Donald Trump was sworn in six months ago. "No more public scoldings. No more moralising from podiums," the new charge d'affaires Robert Palladino told guests, including several Hungarian ministers, at this month's US Independence Day celebration. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban wants his country to serve as a laboratory of far-right ideas and an inspiration for Trump, whom the nationalist describes as "a great friend", and is hoping for a US presidential visit. Self-touted as a "Trump before Trump", Orban has transformed the national life of Hungary, an EU member and home to 9.5 million people, during his 15-year rule. In his drive to build what he has called an "illiberal state", he has been accused of silencing critical voices from the judiciary, academia, media and civil society, and of restricting minority rights. Trump's predecessor Joe Biden once accused him of "looking for dictatorship". - 'Open-air museum' - "Hungary is like an open-air museum, whose leader appears to have proved it is possible to bring back the so-called good old days," Zsolt Enyedi, a senior democracy researcher at Vienna-based Central European University, told AFP. "Illiberal ideas have been institutionalised," he added. Both Trump and Orban target minorities, including the LGBTQ community. "Orban realised there was not a strong public resistance to incitation against vulnerable groups... so he leveraged these to campaign," Enyedi said. "Similarly, Trump deports people without going through due process as American conventions would dictate," the researcher added. US author Rod Dreher, who lives in Budapest and promotes the "Hungarian model" in the United States, praises the two leaders' common fight against the "ideological left". "It does matter a lot to ordinary Americans when their little children are being sent to schools and being taught about transgenderism," the 58-year-old told AFP. - 'Strongman' tactics - In a recent discussion hosted by the Hungarian-government-financed Danube Institute, where he works, Dreher cited the example of the University of Pennsylvania, which agreed to ban biological males from its women's sports teams, settling a federal civil rights complaint. "Pure Orban," Dreher says. "We would not have gotten that out of a normie Republican president. "When institutions that should be neutral are so far to the left, it takes a strongman like Trump just to try to bring them back to the centre." The Trump administration has threatened to cut funding to prestigious universities like Harvard and Columbia, criticised federal judges who suspend its decisions and is in open conflict with major media outlets. By limiting access to certain journalists and replacing them with fringe media loyal to his cause, Trump is very similar to Orban, according to Enyedi. "Both make it clear that they are acting out of revenge," he said. This week, the CBS network announced the end of Stephen Colbert's "The Late Show", long a staple of late night US television, saying it was "purely a financial decision". It came days after the comedian blasted parent company Paramount's $16 million settlement with Trump as "a big fat bribe". But, for now, dissenting voices remain much stronger in the United States than in Hungary. While Orban has not yet been invited to the White House in Trump's current term, envoy Palladino foresees that a visit by the US president to Budapest is "hopefully not too far off". Such a "historic visit" would, he said, be "a reflection of real alignment between two sovereign nations that believe in tradition, strength, and identity. "But that moment won't happen on its own. It will require vision, effort, and commitment -- on both sides of the Atlantic."
eNCA
20 hours ago
- eNCA
Reflecting on former Nigerian President Buhari's legacy
NAIROBI - The late former Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari was laid to rest at his home town after his remains were repatriated from London. Buhari died at the age of 82 following a long illness. Buhari served as president between 2015 to 2023, making him the first opposition leader to ascend to power. The former military leader was dubbed the converted democrat. He was fiercely criticised for both failing to improve security and improve economic growth during his tenure.
