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.