MBABANE – Government has explained that the 25 Chinese nationals who were re-arrested shortly after being released from custody were apprehended again because their passports had been revoked by authorities in their home country.
This is according to an answering affidavit filed by the Officer Commanding Organised Crime, Deputy Assistant Superintendent Bhekani Shiba, in the High Court. The Chinese nationals have approached the High Court after they were arrested again while travelling to Mozambique through the Mhlumeni and Ngwenya border posts, despite having been released from the Sidwashini Correctional Facility under a court order.
The group had earlier pleaded guilty before the Mbabane Magistrates Court to contravening Section 14(2)(c) and (f) of the Immigration Act by entering and remaining in Eswatini without valid permits and working without the necessary authorisation. They were each fined E500. Following their convictions, they remained in custody pending deportation. However, the High Court later ordered that they be allowed to leave Eswatini voluntarily within a stipulated period.
Acting Minister for Home Affairs Owen Nxumalo subsequently issued warrants authorising their release, and they were freed from Sidwashini Correctional Facility on July 25 to leave through either the Ngwenya or Mhlumeni border posts.
According to Shiba, immigration officials carried out routine electronic and manual checks on the passports when the group arrived at the border posts. He said the checks revealed that the travel documents had been revoked and were no longer valid for international travel.
“Fifteen passports presented at Mhlumeni Border Post were flagged as invalid, while another 14 passports presented at Ngwenya Border Post were similarly found to have been revoked and legally invalid,” Shiba states in the affidavit.
He said immigration officials could not legally allow anyone to leave the country using invalid travel documents. The State argues that under international immigration law, no country can permit a traveller carrying revoked or invalid passports to cross an international border, while neighbouring countries cannot be compelled to admit undocumented foreign nationals.
Shiba said the Chinese nationals were therefore arrested again, not because of the immigration offences for which they had already been convicted, but because authorities had discovered what he described as a fresh and separate matter involving invalid travel documents. “The police lawfully apprehended the applicants in fresh breach of the law, not for their past immigration infractions, but for the distinct, contemporaneous discovery of fraudulent or invalid travel documents,” he states.
The affidavit further states that Eswatini immigration officials escorted the passport holders to the Mozambican side for verification, where Mozambican immigration authorities allegedly confirmed that the passports were invalid.
According to the State, Mozambique also informed Eswatini that the Chinese nationals would not be admitted into its territory.
Shiba further alleges that investigations later led to another 10 Chinese nationals, who were allegedly travelling towards the border and linked to the same group, being apprehended before reaching the ports of exit. He states that none of the Chinese nationals has yet been charged over the passport issue because investigations, including forensic examinations and diplomatic verification, are still under way.
The State further argues that the latest detention does not amount to double jeopardy because the previous convictions related only to unlawful entry into Eswatini and working without permits, whereas the present investigation concerns the alleged use of revoked and invalid passports.
Government also told the High Court that it has engaged the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, which has indicated its willingness to arrange replacement travel documents and facilitate the group’s repatriation directly to China.
The respondents have asked the High Court to dismiss the application brought by the Chinese nationals, arguing that they were not in contempt of court because they had complied with the order releasing the applicants from prison before the passport problem emerged at the border. Instead, the State is seeking the court’s guidance on how to lawfully implement the voluntary departure order in light of what it describes as the applicants’ lack of valid travel documents and the refusal by neighbouring countries to admit them.
