The arrival of five immigrants who were deported from the United States to Eswatini caused a lot of public discontent and showed how easy it is for government to set itself against the people when handling a sensitive issue.
When President Donald Trump of the United States publicly named Eswatini as a destination for these ‘uniquely barbaric’ criminals who had been found guilty of serious crimes including murder and child rape, any claim to confidentiality was meaningless. The state may have a right to choose what to keep secret, but this negotiation was not one of them. Failure to inform the public has fuelled distrust, leaving emaSwati questioning the rationale, benefits and costs of housing these convicts.
I am glad that the prime minister has come out to explain that there will be no cost to the taxpayer as the US government will cater for the costs of the inmates, as well as for the repatriation expenses. That is all that government needed to tell us, well ahead of time because it may not be a walk in the park to try and regain the trust of the people. In a nation already grappling with overcrowded prisons and strained resources, the government owed its citizens prior notice of this arrangement.
The Prime Minister (PM) Russell Dlamini has told parliament that it is not all details of the agreements that the public needs to know. True, but there should be consideration to public concerns depending on the gravity of the matter.
The level of discontent was exemplified by the PM being compelled to come out to assure the public that the five immigrants, originating from Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos, are securely housed in isolated units within His Majesty’s Correctional Services (HMCS) and pose no threat. This was despite the fact that a statement had already been issued by the Acting Government Spokesperson Thabile Mdluli after the news broke out in foreign media.
We were belatedly informed that the arrangement stems from months of high-level engagements with the US, involving risk assessments and collaboration with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) to facilitate the inmates’ eventual transit to their countries of origin.
I do not have a problem with third-country host agreements because they are not unprecedented. Rwanda’s arrangement with the UK illustrates how such deals can bolster diplomatic ties and position smaller nations as strategic players in global migration frameworks. Eswatini’s participation could strengthen its relationship with the US, potentially securing future economic or diplomatic support.
The United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling, enabling deportations to third countries without ties, has facilitated arrangements like this one. South Sudan’s acceptance of eight immigrants and Rwanda’s ongoing talks with the US place Eswatini within a broader trend. However, Nigeria’s refusal to accept third-country immigrants underscores that such agreements are not obligatory. Eswatini chose this path, and it should own it, unashamedly.
All that mattered to the taxpayers, was their safety and who would bear the cost of feeding and housing these immigrants because they deserve to know how their money is being offset. Without clarity, public scepticism intensified, which was not necessary to divert government attention to ongoing crises like the drug shortages in health facilities that need urgent attention.
On the flip side, this arrangement could inadvertently strengthen Eswatini’s correctional services. Managing tough offenders gives correctional officers a chance to improve their skills in dealing with high-risk convicts, which could help fix problems that were shown by recent prison escapes. However, this does not do much to ease the pressure on Eswatini’s overcrowded prisons.
Adding five high-profile offenders makes an already bad situation worse. This is what drew questions around whether the US monies may be used to build more facilities or lower the tax burden. We may not know how much money is involved, but we need to see it put to its intended use. Government’s silence on this issue makes people more suspicious and less trusting. We do not want that. We need a nation working together to resolve its challenges and chart a sustainable way forward to prosperity for all.
Director of Communications Percy Simelane’s defence, that Eswatini’s decisions are guided by its Constitution, not regional opinion, is valid; however, this is one issue that need not absolve government of its duty to inform and prepare its citizens for the international media focus.
Now that the PM has disclosed elements of the deal, we trust lessons have been learnt and that we will not be subjected to such shocks in future. A transparent process, potentially involving public consultations or parliamentary oversight, would ensure accountability.
Eswatini’s alignment with the US offers diplomatic leverage, but this cannot come at the expense of public confidence. Government’s secrecy has turned a potential diplomatic win into a controversy. By taking the nation into its confidence, it would demonstrate leadership and commitment to the public good. Going forward, it must not allow distrust to ferment.
Leave a comment