Nine months of litigation to allow a lawyer through the door.
Four men have been sitting inside Matsapha Correctional Complex, Eswatini's maximum-security prison, for nine months — not because they were charged with anything in that country, not because they were arrested there, but because the United States paid the Eswatini government to take them. On Thursday, the kingdom's Supreme Court finally said they could meet with a lawyer.
The four men — nationals of Cuba, Yemen, Laos, and Vietnam — were sent to Eswatini last July as part of the Trump administration's third-country deportation program, a mechanism designed to remove migrants from the United States who cannot easily be returned to their countries of origin. The U.S. government has acknowledged that all four had criminal convictions and standing deportation orders. Their lawyers counter that they had already served their sentences in the United States, and that holding them in an African prison where they face no charges and have no ties to the country is simply illegal.
For nine months, the men were permitted only phone contact with their American attorneys. In-person access was blocked entirely. A lower court had ruled that Sibusiso Nhlabatsi, a local lawyer working on behalf of the U.S.-based legal team, should be allowed to visit them — but the Eswatini government appealed immediately. Authorities argued, remarkably, that the men had no right to legal counsel because they hadn't been charged with a crime in Eswatini, and further claimed the men didn't even want to see a lawyer. The Supreme Court dismissed both arguments.
Alma David, an attorney at Novo Legal Group who represents two of the four men, said the length of the legal fight to secure something as basic as a lawyer visit was itself a statement. Nine months of litigation, she noted, reveals how aggressively the Eswatini government has worked to deny the men even the most fundamental protections.
Eswatini is Africa's last absolute monarchy, governed by a king, and human rights organizations have documented a pattern of suppressing pro-democracy movements, at times with violence. It is also, as of last July, one of at least eight African nations that have entered into agreements with the United States to accept deported migrants who are not their own citizens. The U.S. agreed to pay Eswatini $5.1 million for this arrangement. Eswatini has received at least 19 deportees from the U.S. in separate batches and has said it can hold them for up to a year. Two have since been returned to their home countries.
The financial architecture of these deals is substantial and, in several cases, troubling. Rwanda is set to receive $7.5 million. Senate Democrats have raised alarms about a $7.5 million payment to Equatorial Guinea, whose ruling family faces longstanding accusations of corruption and embezzlement. Documents related to the South Sudan deal revealed that the government there asked the U.S. to lift sanctions on a senior official accused of corruption and to help prosecute an opposition leader — though there is no indication the U.S. agreed to those terms. Much of the broader program remains opaque: the locations of some detainees are undisclosed, and the duration of their detention is unclear.
The scale of the effort is significant. A February report from Democratic staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee found that the Trump administration had spent at least $40 million to deport roughly 300 migrants to countries other than their own — in Africa, Central America, and elsewhere. Internal documents reviewed by the Associated Press around the same time showed 47 such deals either finalized or under negotiation.
U.S. officials have maintained that proper legal process was followed before the deportations. But critics argue that once the men land in a third country, the United States effectively washes its hands of them, leaving their treatment to governments with limited accountability and no particular obligation to the people now in their custody.
A spokesperson for the Eswatini government said she was not immediately able to comment on the Supreme Court's ruling. For the four men at Matsapha, the ruling means a lawyer can now walk through the door. What happens after that — whether their detention can be challenged, whether they can be returned to their home countries, whether the broader program faces legal scrutiny — remains to be seen.
Notable Quotes
The nine months it took to secure a simple lawyer visit speaks volumes about how hard the Eswatini government is fighting to deny these men the most basic of rights.— Alma David, Novo Legal Group, representing two of the four deported men
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Nine months without meeting a lawyer — how does that even happen legally?
The Eswatini government's position was that since the men weren't charged with a crime there, they had no right to counsel. It's a circular logic: we're not prosecuting you, so you have no rights.
And the U.S. just... let that stand?
The U.S. says it followed due process before the deportations. After that, it handed responsibility to Eswatini. The men are in a legal gap between two jurisdictions.
What's the point of the third-country program from the administration's perspective?
Speed and leverage. If someone can't easily be sent home — because their country won't take them, or there's no diplomatic channel — you send them somewhere that will accept them, for a price.
Five million dollars to Eswatini. That's a lot for a country that size.
It is. And the deals vary — Rwanda gets $7.5 million. Some of the terms are still secret. What's being exchanged, beyond money, isn't always clear.
The South Sudan ask — sanctions relief and help prosecuting an opposition leader — that's extraordinary.
It is. And the fact that it appeared in documents at all suggests these negotiations involve more than just logistics. Whether the U.S. engaged with those requests, we don't know.
What does it mean that Eswatini is an absolute monarchy?
It means there's no independent legislature pushing back, no opposition party with standing to challenge the government's decisions. The king's authority is largely unchecked, which makes the Supreme Court ruling more notable — the judiciary still moved.
Do the four men have any realistic path out of Matsapha?
Eswatini said it could hold deportees for up to a year. Two others have already been repatriated. Now that a lawyer can actually visit, there's at least a chance to build a legal argument. But the clock is uncertain.