Men deported by U.S. to Eswatini in Africa will be held in solitary confinement for undetermined time
Thabile Mdluli, the spokesperson, declined to identify the correctional facility or facilities where the five men are, citing security concerns. She said Eswatini planned to ultimately repatriate the five to their home countries with the help of a United Nations agency.
In cellphone messages to The Associated Press on Thursday, Mdluli said it wasn't clear how long that would take.
The men, who the U.S. says were convicted of serious crimes and were in the U.S. illegally, are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos. Their convictions included murder and child rape, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said, describing them as 'uniquely barbaric.'
Their deportations were announced by Homeland Security on Tuesday and mark the continuation of President Donald Trump's plan to send deportees to third countries they have no ties with after it was stalled by a legal challenge in the United States.
Here's what we know and don't know about the deportations:
A new country for deportees
Eswatini, a country of 1.2 million people bordering South Africa, is the latest nation to accept third-country deportees from the U.S. The Trump administration has sent hundreds of Venezuelans and others to Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama, and deported eight men earlier this month to South Sudan, also an African country.
The deportees to South Sudan are citizens of Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan. They were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at a U.S. military base in the nearby country of Djibouti until a Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for them to be finally sent to South Sudan. The U.S. also described them as violent criminals.
Eswatini's government confirmed on Wednesday that the latest five deportees were in its custody after landing on a deportation plane from the U.S.
Local media reported they are being held at the Matsapha Correctional Complex, outside the country's administrative capital of Mbabane, which includes Eswatini's top maximum-security prison.
The men's fate is unclear
The Eswatini government said the men are 'in transit' and will eventually be sent to their home countries. The U.S. and Eswatini governments would work with the UN migration agency to do that, it said.
The UN agency — the International Organization for Migration or IOM — said it was not involved in the operation and has not been approached to assist in the matter but would be willing to help 'in line with its humanitarian mandate.'
Eswatini's statement that the men would be sent home was in contrast to U.S. claims they were sent to Eswatini because their home countries refused to take them back.
It's unclear how sending the men to Eswatini would make it easier for them to be deported home. There was also no timeframe for that as it depends on several factors, including engagements with the IOM, Mdluli said.
'We are not yet in a position to determine the timelines for the repatriation,' she wrote.
Four of the five countries where the men are from have historically resisted taking back some of their citizens deported from the U.S., which has been a reoccurring problem for Homeland Security. Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the administration was happy the men were 'off of American soil' when she announced their deportations.
Another secretive deal
There have been no details on why Eswatini agreed to take the men and Mdluli, the government spokesperson, said 'the terms of the agreement between the U.S. and Eswatini remain classified.'
Eswatini has said it was the result of months of negotiations between the two governments. South Sudan has also given no details of its agreement with the U.S. to take deportees and has declined to say where the eight men sent there are being held.
Some analysts say African nations might be willing to take deportees from the U.S. in return for more favourable relations with the Trump administration, which has cut foreign aid to poor countries and threatened them with trade tariffs.
The Trump administration has also said it's seeking more deportation deals with other countries.
Rights groups have questioned the countries the U.S. has chosen to deal with, as South Sudan and Eswatini have both been criticized for having repressive governments.
Eswatini is Africa's only absolute monarchy, meaning the king has power over government and rules by decree. Political parties are banned and pro-democracy protests have been quelled violently in the past.
Several rights groups have criticized Eswatini since pro-democracy protests erupted there in 2021, citing deadly crackdowns by security forces and abusive conditions in prisons, including at the Matsapha Correctional Complex, where pro-democracy activists are held.
___
Associated Press writers Mogomotsi Magome and Michelle Gumede in Johannesburg contributed to this report.
Gerald Imray, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump administration seeks release of Epstein grand jury records but not Justice Department files
WASHINGTON (AP) — Under intense pressure from President Donald Trump's own supporters, his administration now says it will push a court to unseal secret documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's case in an effort to put to rest for good a political crisis largely of its own making. But even if those records become public, it's far from certain they will appease critics enraged over the administration's unfulfilled promises of full transparency about evidence against the wealthy financier. Meanwhile, the administration remains dogged by questions about its refusal to release other records in its possession after stoking conspiracy theories and pledging to uncover government secrets of the 'deep state.' Here's a look at the ongoing Epstein files controversy and what may happen next: How the case got here Trump is desperately trying to turn the page on a crisis that has consumed his administration since the Justice Department announced last week that it would not release any more evidence about the sex trafficking investigation into Epstein, who killed himself behind bars while awaiting trial in 2019. The latest development came Thursday when the Wall Street Journal described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein's 50th birthday. Trump denied writing the letter, calling it 'false, malicious, and defamatory.' Shortly after the story was published, Trump said he had directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval.' 'This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!' the president wrote on social media. Bondi then announced that the Justice Department would move Friday to ask the court to unseal the grand jury transcripts. Courts are typically reluctant to release grand jury materials Grand juries decide whether there is enough evidence to bring an indictment, or a formal criminal charge, and their proceedings are secret to protect the reputations of people who end up not being charged and to encourage reluctant witnesses to testify. Grand jury transcripts — which could show the testimony of witnesses and other evidence presented by prosecutors — are rarely released by courts, unless they need to be disclosed in connection with a judicial proceeding. In fact, grand jury secrecy is such a sacrosanct principle under the law that government officials who improperly disclose testimony are subject to prosecution. Witnesses are not bound by those rules. Even with the Justice Department endorsement, it could take weeks or months of legal wrangling to decide what can be released and how to protect witnesses and other sensitive victim information. And it's unlikely the transcripts would shed any light on a major fascination of conspiracy theorists obsessed with Epstein's case: the financier's connections to other powerful figures whom some believe were involved in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme. Court have blocked the release of grand jury materials in other high-profile investigations. House Democrats in 2019 sought grand jury testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation while Congress was conducting its impeachment inquiry into Trump. But the Justice Department successfully fought for years to keep the material secret. The administration could release other records right now The Justice Department's decision to seek grand jury transcripts gives the administration a reason to point to the courts to explain why more material hasn't yet been released. But the uproar over the Epstein files was never about the grand jury transcripts — it was about the thousands of other pages in the government's possession that the administration now says it won't release. Facing outrage after the first release of Epstein files flopped in February, Bondi said officials were poring over a 'truckload' of previously withheld evidence she said had been handed over by the FBI. But after a monthslong review of evidence in the government's possession, the Justice Department determined that no 'further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.' The Justice Department has yet to fully explain why none of that material could be released. It noted in its memo earlier this month that much of the material was placed under seal by a court to protect victims and 'only a fraction' of it 'would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial.' Since then, Bondi has largely refused to answer questions from reporters about the matter. Congress' Epstein files resolution carries no legal weight House Republicans may vote next week on a resolution that seeks to appease GOP demands for more transparency on the Epstein case, The resolution calls on the Justice Department to publicly release records, but it carries no legal force. 'The House Republicans are for transparency, and they're looking for a way to say that they agree with the White House,' House Speaker Mike Johnson said Thursday. 'We agree with the president. Everything he said about that, all the credible evidence should come out.' Democrats, with the support of nine Republicans, have advanced their own legislation that would require the Justice Department to release more information about the case. ___ Associated Press Writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Toronto sees nearly 50 per cent spike in residential robberies this year
Video CP24 crime analyst Steve Ryan has more on the disturbing trend of increasing residential robberies, and what you can do to protect your home.
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
The political and cultural gravity of cancelling The Late Show With Stephen Colbert
Social Sharing Last night, comedian Stephen Colbert told his TV audience that his eponymous late night show will end its run in May 2026. The show's network, CBS, cites financial concerns as the reason to cancel The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. However, media analysts and politicians speculate that Colbert's criticism of President Donald Trump may have more to do with this decision than money. This past Monday, Colbert had criticized CBS parent company Paramount Global for settling a $16 million lawsuit with Trump. Colbert called the settlement a "big fat bribe," as Paramount needs the Trump administration's approval to facilitate a merger between Paramount and Skydance Media. Today on Commotion, host Elamin Abdelmahmoud speaks with film and TV critics Dylan Green, Rad Simonpillai and Alison Willmore to discuss what the cancellation of The Late Show means for the TV and political landscape. We've included some highlights below, edited for length and clarity. For the full discussion on the new film Eddington and the viral "Coldplay couple," listen and follow Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud on your favourite podcast player. WATCH | Today's episode on YouTube: Elamin: The thing that really struck me about this story, Alison, is that the idea that Colbert himself gets named as one of the things that is making Skydance nervous. Because there's a lot of reporting that suggests that Skydance is like, "Hey, Stephen Colbert is quite critical of Trump politics in general." And that could be a reason to maybe, at a certain point, Trump having some kind of frustration and blocking the merger. He does have that power. He has interfered before or attempted to block a merger before. What are you seeing in terms of your reaction to this story? Alison: What's disturbing to me — there are many things that are disturbing about this — but I think in particular, the way in which CBS and Paramount are just one of many large media and tech companies who have essentially paid out to the Trump administration in different ways. ABC also did, I think it was a $15 million settlement over the George Stephanopoulos thing. Meta has paid out. Amazon figured out a way to pay millions and millions of dollars for a Melania documentary that we have yet to see. All of these things, it's hard not to read them for — whatever justification that each one gives — as a means of, yes, doing something that looks a lot like a "big fat bribe" to placate the Trump administration. These are the largest media companies we have and they're immediately bending the knee to the administration. It just gives you that sense that there is no space for even the pretense of a critical voice in any of these large media corporations. In part because Trump has proven so prone to be punitive, but also because none of them seem to want to stand up in any way. They're all immediately saying, "This is the way the wind is blowing, at least for the next few years, and we're going to follow it." That's depressing. It's not a great sign. Elamin: Your reactions to this entire story, Rad, what do you see? Rad: It's hard to take the financial reasons as the excuse, even though there's a lot of legitimacy to that, because late night in general has been suffering and people don't tune in for cable, and we've seen other shows fall for this very reason. But when you say financial reason, I mean, that $16 million settlement is a financial reason. The fact that you have this voice on your platform that is critical of that, that is calling it a "bribe" to the Trump administration to make sure that this sale goes through, this merger with Skydance. That's obviously the thing that everyone is honing in on. If you're thinking about how desperately Paramount wants a sale with Skydance to go through. You think about: what would Skydance want out of a media company? Skydance, their CEO, David Ellison, I mean, this guy's a Trump supporter. This guy's courting [conservative journalist] Bari Weiss to either take over her Free Press organization [her news outlet] or to have her become an editorial overseer in terms of CBS. The idea of Bari Weiss and Stephen Colbert existing at the same media platform, that does not cohere. Elamin: Colbert is far and away the number one show in that slot. He's way ahead of Jimmy Kimmel, who's number two in that slot. And he's the only late night show that's been growing its audience, according to Nielsen ratings. Dylan, does this surprise you, reading all of this? Dylan: Not really. Him and Jon Stewart were pioneers of that particular type of satirical newscasting. And then Colbert transitions into something that he's not playing the character no more. But he has that experience and he has that built-in audience and he's got a lot of power, in that sense. So it shook me to see that they were like, "We're not just replacing something, the whole show is leaving." They're very much sending a statement …. But considering his [Colbert's] reputation, it makes perfect sense to me that they're using him as an opportunity to just be like, "Y'all are next."
