South Africa Rejects Claims Deportees From Eswatini Crossed Its Borders

South Africa's Border Management Authority (BMA) has rejected claims that people deported by the United States to neighbouring Eswatini entered South Africa through informal border crossings. The authority said the country's land ports of entry with Eswatini are secured, but questions remain over the routes used by three people who recently left Eswatini.

Key facts

• The BMA issued its response on 7 October 2026.
• Three third-country nationals left Eswatini in recent weeks: a Yemeni national on 8 September, a Belizean national on 30 September and a Lao national on 4 October.
• Eswatini's government has declined to disclose which countries the three travelled through.
• Allegations that the deportees entered South Africa illegally have not been independently confirmed.
• The United States paid Eswatini $5.1 million under the bilateral arrangement, according to Human Rights Watch, which cited the agreement between the two governments.

What is the dispute about?

The three individuals were sent to Eswatini under an arrangement with the administration of US President Donald Trump. Eswatini's acting government spokesperson, Thabile Mdluli, said the departures were voluntary repatriations forming part of ongoing arrangements for third-country nationals temporarily residing in the kingdom.

Debate over the case grew after talk radio presenter Clement Manyathela said Mdluli declined to tell him which countries the deportees passed through. She is reported to have said the government did not want to cause unnecessary panic. A Department of International Relations and Cooperation spokesperson, Clayson Monyela, pointed to the Eswatini government statement when asked about the claims.

What has the Border Management Authority said?

The BMA said South Africa's land ports of entry with Eswatini have access-control measures at designated entry and exit points. It added that it works with other law-enforcement authorities to maintain a presence at ports of Entry while carrying out border surveillance and enforcement operations aimed at preventing unlawful entry, including human smuggling and trafficking.

The authority also pointed out that people travelling through South African airports in international transit do not necessarily enter the country, because they can remain within international transfer areas.

Is there any confirmed case of transit?

No independent evidence has established that any of the three latest deportees crossed into South Africa illegally. However, at least one earlier case involved travel through Johannesburg: the Associated Press reported that Phone Chomsavanh, a Lao national deported to Eswatini in July 2025, was released after more than a year in detention and later travelled to Johannesburg en route to Laos, according to his US-based lawyer.

What is the background to the arrangement?

Human Rights Watch cited the bilateral agreement as providing for the acceptance of up to 160 deportees and supporting Eswatini's border and migration management capacity. A US Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority report estimated that, by February 2026, transferring 15 third-country nationals to Eswatini cost about $1.1 million for two flights, on top of the $5.1 million payment — an estimated $413,333 per person combined.

In August 2025, South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation said Pretoria had raised concerns with Eswatini about the potential impact on national security and immigration policy given the two countries' proximity.

What this means for travellers

South Africa's land border posts with Eswatini remain open with access controls in place, and the BMA says surveillance and enforcement operations continue to prevent unlawful entry. Travellers passing through South African airports on international connections should note the BMA's point that remaining in an international transfer area does not amount to entering the country.

The question of whether any of the three recent deportees transited South Africa, and under what immigration arrangements, remains unanswered. The BMA says claims of illegal entry are not established facts.