Four men deported by US to Eswatini have right to see lawyer, court rules

Key Takeaways

• Eswatini’s supreme court ordered that four men deported from the US must be allowed in-person meetings with a local lawyer after nine months of denial.
• The men — from Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam and Yemen — were sent to Eswatini in July as part of the Trump administration’s use of third-country deportations; one of the first five deportees was later repatriated to Jamaica.
• It has been reported that the US labelled the men “dangerous criminals”; their US lawyers say they already served sentences in the US.
• Human rights groups contend these third-country transfers raise serious legal and humanitarian questions; the US Department of Homeland Security defended the policy as lawful.
• For migrants and counsel, the ruling underscores the practical importance of local legal access and the limits of detention authorities’ discretion in third countries.

Court ruling and immediate facts

Eswatini’s supreme court ruled that four men deported from the United States must be granted in-person access to a local lawyer after nearly nine months of detention in a maximum-security prison without such visits. The detainees — from Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam and Yemen — were flown to Eswatini in July in a move tied to the US administration’s expansion of removals to third countries. It has been reported that the US government labelled the men “dangerous criminals”; their US attorneys say the men had already completed sentences in the United States. The court rejected the authorities’ claim that the inmates showed “no interest” in meeting the local human rights lawyer, saying there was no harm in granting access.

Policy context: third-country deportations and controversy

The transfers are part of a broader US policy under which people are removed to countries where they have no clear nationality or ties. These so-called third‑country deportations have included flights to Ghana, South Sudan, Uganda and Eswatini. Human rights lawyers and NGOs have said the practice amounts to a form of human trafficking; it has been reported that some advocates characterize it as such. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pushed back, calling those allegations “insane” and insisting the administration is using lawful options to carry out a large removal operation. “DHS” refers to the US Department of Homeland Security, the agency that oversees US immigration enforcement.

Human impact and what this means for people facing removal

The ruling matters for people subject to removal because access to local counsel can affect detention conditions, avenues for repatriation, or challenges to treatment while detained. Denial of in-person legal visits for months can hinder coordinated legal strategy between US-based lawyers and local advocates, reduce oversight of detention conditions, and delay any steps toward voluntary repatriation or claims for protection. For someone going through removal now: raise the risk of third‑country transfer with your US attorney early, ask about requests for stays or supervisorial review, and insist on consular contact and local counsel where transfers occur. The decision also signals that domestic courts in receiving countries can enforce basic access-to-lawyer rights even when removals are politically charged.

Source: Original Article