MBABANE – The High Court has granted 25 Chinese nationals leave to execute an earlier judgment ordering their release from custody.
The judgment was delivered by Judge Zonke Magagula on Thursday, in the matter of Li Hai and 24 others against the national commissioner of police and three others.
The nationals of the People’s Republic of China were arrested in March 2026 together with people from other overseas countries. They faced various charges, including alleged contraventions of the Immigration Act, the Gaming Control Act, money laundering and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Their arrest followed raids conducted at illegal online gambling centres in Mbabane and surrounding areas.
On June 12, 2026, the 25 applicants appeared before the Principal Magistrate at the Mbabane Magistrates Court, where they pleaded guilty to contravening Section 14(2)(c) and (f) of the Immigration Act of 1982.
The Principal Magistrate, Fikile Nhlabatsi, convicted and sentenced each applicant to a fine of E500, with six months imprisonment as an alternative in the event of non-payment.
The magistrate further ordered that after payment of the fine, or completion of the custodial sentence, the applicants were to remain in detention pending their deportation in terms of Section 8(8) of the Immigration Act.
The applicants, who were represented by Linda Dlamini of Linda Dlamini and Associates, paid the fines but remained in detention while awaiting deportation.
Through their legal counsel, they expressed a desire to leave Eswatini voluntarily rather than await deportation. According to the judgment, their requests did not result in their release, prompting them to approach the High Court.
The applicants sought, among other relief, an order compelling the national commissioner of police to release their passports, a declaration that their continued detention was unlawful and an order directing the minister for Home Affairs to facilitate their voluntary departure.
The application was heard around July 1 and was resolved through a consent order which substantially granted the relief sought by the applicants.
The matter returned to court on July 16 after the applicants alleged that the chief immigration officer had failed to comply with the July 1 order by not processing their voluntary departure.
They sought, among other orders, a declaration that the chief immigration officer was in contempt of court and confirmation that they could choose their preferred point of departure.
The applicants specifically referred to King Mswati III International Airport, Mhlumeni Border Post and Lomahasha Border Post.
The State initially filed an affidavit opposing the application but later elected not to oppose it after oral arguments had begun. A further consent order was consequently entered, allowing the applicants’ prayers.
The court also ordered the applicants to make arrangements to leave Eswatini within 48 hours of their release from custody.
According to the judgment, the applicants were released around noon on July 25. They divided themselves into two groups, with one travelling towards Mhlumeni Border Post and the other towards Ngwenya Border Gate. The group travelling to Mhlumeni was not permitted to leave the country.
The parties gave differing accounts of what happened at the border. The applicants alleged that they were prevented from presenting their passports to immigration officers on the instructions of members of the Royal Eswatini Police Service.
The State, however, stated that some of the applicants had presented their passports and that the documents were flagged because they had been declared revoked.
The applicants were detained again and subsequently brought before the principal magistrate in Manzini.
They were charged for contravening Section 14(c) of the Immigration Act, charges which the judgment described as similar to those for which they had previously been convicted by the principal magistrate in Mbabane.
The applicants challenged their detention before the High Court. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court ruled that their arrest and detention, as well as the institution of charges under Section 14(c), violated Section 21(7) of the Constitution of Eswatini Act, 2005.
The court ordered that the applicants be released forthwith and found that it was unlawful for the respondents to re-arrest them and charge them under the same section of the Immigration Act.
The applicants were nevertheless not released, according to the judgment. They subsequently brought the application which resulted in the September 3 judgment, seeking leave to execute the High Court ruling of August 3, despite an appeal noted by the State on August.
The State argued, among other things, that an appeal automatically stayed execution of the judgment. It also raised objections relating to jurisdictional requirements, alleged abuse of court process, defective relief, misjoinder and the principle of automatic stay pending appeal.
The High Court acknowledged that the common law position in Eswatini is that an appeal automatically stays execution of a judgment.
However, Judge Magagula said an application for leave to execute requires consideration of the circumstances of each case.
The judgment referred to established principles requiring a court to consider potential prejudice to the appellant if execution is allowed, potential irreparable prejudice to the respondent if execution is refused, prospects of success on appeal and the balance of hardship where both parties may suffer prejudice.
The court found that the applicants stood to suffer irreparable prejudice if leave to execute was refused because they remained in custody. The State, on the other hand, was found not to face prejudice if execution was permitted.
“The applicants had already been tried and sentenced and had served their sentences by paying the fines. There is no legally cognisable reason for their continued detention,” said Judge Magagula.
The court also considered the prospects of success in the respondents’ appeal. It found that the prospects were, at best, very slim and, at worst, non-existent. The court further stated that it appeared the appeal had been noted for an indirect purpose rather than with a serious intention of having the earlier judgment reversed.
The court also considered submissions that the People’s Republic of China was arranging for the applicants to be transported to China. However, the judgment noted that there had been no application or order for extradition.
The court stated that, in the absence of formal extradition proceedings, it could only note the circumstances surrounding the applicants’ continued detention. After considering the relevant factors, Judge Magagula granted the applicants leave to execute the August 3 judgment.
The court dismissed the remaining prayers because it found insufficient averments to sustain those orders. The final order granted the 25 applicants leave to execute the judgment delivered on August 3. The court made no order as to costs.
Leave a comment