MBABANE – A group of sixty-four foreign nationals detained at the Sidvwashini Correctional Services have approached the High Court, accusing the chief immigration officer of defying a court order and unlawfully preventing them from leaving the country.
These are the foreign nationals who were arrested in March 2026 during raids of illegal online gambling centres. They were fined E500 each for being in the country illegally and were kept in custody pending deportation. They are now accusing the chief immigration officer of frustrating their deportation to their home countries.
In their court application, they seek an order declaring the chief immigration officer in contempt of court for allegedly refusing to facilitate their voluntary departure.
The matter resulted from an incident where the applicants, comprising nationals from the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of China on Taiwan and Indonesia, were arrested and charged with contravening Section 14(2)(c) and (f) of the Immigration Act, 1982. On June 12, 2026, they pleaded guilty before the Mbabane Magistrates Court and were sentenced to pay a fine of E500 on each count, which has been paid in full.
Following their conviction, the Magistrate ordered that the individuals remain in the custody of His Majesty’s Correctional Services pending deportation.
On July 1, 2026, High Court Judge Zonke Magagula issued an order directing the national commissioner of police to release the passports of the convicted individuals to their legal representative, Linda Dlamini of Linda Dlamini and Associates.
The Minister for Home Affairs was subsequently ordered to take all necessary steps to facilitate their voluntary departure, including the signing of liberation warrants. Judge Magagula further declared that any attempt to continue detaining the applicants without preferring fresh criminal charges or initiating formal extradition proceedings would constitute a violation of their fundamental rights.
According to the founding affidavit deposed by the first applicant, Li Hai, the legal representative successfully obtained the passports from the police. While three of the detainees successfully departed Eswatini via KMIII International Airport on July 3, the departure of the remaining 65 individuals was reportedly blocked.
Li Hai stated that when Dlamini attended the Department of Immigration, immigration officials revealed that the chief immigration officer had issued strict instructions not to process their departures. The reasons reportedly given by the official were that the detainees had to be extradited to the People’s Republic of China, and that the High Court order of July 1 was not lawful.
The applicants state that no written reasons, court orders or formal extradition requests have been served to justify the refusal to allow their departure. They further contend that the respondents have not appealed, varied or sought to set aside the July 1 High Court order, despite refusing to comply with it.
According to the application, the Kingdom of Eswatini does not have a bilateral extradition treaty with the People’s Republic of China. “Under the Extradition Act, 1968, there is therefore no legal basis to detain them for extradition. Even if an Interpol Red Notice existed, such a notice would not on its own authorise their continued detention in the absence of formal extradition proceedings before a court,” argues the applicants.
The veracity of these allegations is still to be tested in court and the respondents are yet to file answering papers.
The applicants also allege that the chief immigration officer acted beyond the powers granted under the Immigration Act, 1982. They contend that the Act empowers immigration officials to carry out administrative functions such as boarding and searching aircraft, trains and vehicles, questioning travellers, examining travel documents and requiring medical examinations where necessary. They argue that the legislation does not authorise the chief immigration officer to override obligations imposed on the minister for Home Affairs by a court order, determine the destination of deportees or decide whether a High Court order is lawful.
In their founding papers, the applicants maintain that the July 1 order remains valid and binding on all organs of the State. They argue that by refusing to comply with it and allegedly declaring it unlawful, the chief immigration officer has deliberately disregarded the authority of the High Court.
The applicants further contend that the continued refusal to facilitate their departure amounts to contempt of court. They submit that the respondents have neither sought to suspend the order nor approached the courts for any variation or rescission, yet have allegedly continued to ignore its terms.
Their attorney, Dlamini, stated that the matter requires immediate intervention because it concerns an ongoing deprivation of personal liberty. He argued that every additional day spent in detention compounds the alleged infringement of the applicants’ constitutional rights.
According to the application, the applicants’ continued detention amounts to arbitrary detention contrary to Section 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to personal liberty. They also allege violations of Section 16(6), which protects the right to legal representation, and Section 21, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. They further contend that their continued detention is inconsistent with international human rights instruments to which Eswatini is a party.
The applicants state that they have already complied with the criminal sentences imposed by the Magistrate’s Court through payment of the fines ordered against them. They argue that, following the High Court order directing that their voluntary departure be facilitated, there is no lawful basis for preventing them from leaving the country.
As part of the relief sought, the applicants are asking the High Court to direct the minister for Home Affairs and the chief immigration officer to process all necessary exit documentation within 48 hours. They also seek an order allowing them to determine their preferred mode and route of departure.
According to the application, they wish either to depart on commercial flights from KMIII International Airport or travel by road through the Lomahasha or Mhlumeni border gates into Mozambique before boarding connecting international flights from Maputo.
