MBABANE – Eleven Chinese nationals have approached the High Court seeking an urgent order for their release from Sidwashini Correctional Services.
They argued that they should instead be accommodated in a hotel or guesthouse at their own expense while awaiting deportation.
The applicants contend that they have already complied with a court order by paying fines imposed for immigration offences and that their continued detention is unlawful. They further seek an order compelling the authorities to deport them to either Mozambique or China within three days at their own cost.
The application was filed under a certificate of urgency by attorney Derrick Ndo Jele of Robinson Bertram Attorneys.
According to the court papers, the applicants are Qi Benguang, Xiang Xiaowei, Zi Haiwei, He Shixin, Chen Li, Wang Ming, Wei Lang, Zhao Jun, Qin Meiling, Gao Ziyang and Zhou Wei. The respondents are the national commissioner of police, the commissioner general of His Majesty’s Correctional Services, the director of public prosecutions, the minister for Home Affairs, the Department of Immigration and the attorney general.
In the notice of motion, the applicants seek an interim order directing that they be released from custody and placed in a hotel or guesthouse, where they would be responsible for paying for their accommodation and meals until they are deported.
They further ask the court to order the respondents to repatriate them to Mozambique or China within three days of the order at the applicants’ own expense. Benguang, who deposed to the founding affidavit on behalf of the applicants, stated that they were currently being detained at Sidwashini Correctional Services pending deportation.
According to the affidavit, the applicants were arrested on March 20, 2026, during an operation conducted by members of the Royal Eswatini Police at Umushi Wenkosazana Lodge near the Forbes Reef.
The police officers were reportedly armed with warrants of apprehension and search warrants during the operation.
Following their arrest, the applicants were taken to Mbabane Police Station, where they were charged for contravening Sections 14(2)(c) and 14(2)(f) of the Immigration Act of 1982. Benguang states that, during the course of the investigation, a preservation order was obtained on June 5, 2026. According to the applicants, personal cash, mobile phones and other confiscated items were preserved under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The applicants stated that when they appeared before the Mbabane Magistrates Court on June 26, they pleaded guilty only to the immigration charges. They said the charges they had initially faced under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act were amended to offences under the Immigration Act. According to Benguang, each applicant was sentenced to pay a fine of E500 or, in default, serve a maximum of six months’ imprisonment backdated to March 3.
The court also ordered that they remain detained at Sidwashini Correctional Services pending completion of the deportation process.
The applicants state that, through their attorneys, they undertook to pay all costs associated with their deportation. They further state that on June 29 they paid the fines imposed by the magistrates court and warrants of liberation were subsequently issued.
Benguang alleged that those warrants were submitted to officials at Sidwashini Correctional Services, but were retained pending completion of the deportation process.
The applicants contend that despite paying the fines and receiving warrants of liberation, they have remained in custody for more than a month without being released or deported. They argue that there has been no indication from the respondents regarding when the deportation process will be completed.
In the affidavit, the applicants state that they believe the authorities may lack the financial resources to facilitate their deportation.
They told the court that they have informed the respondents, through their attorneys, that they are willing and able to pay for their own flights from King Mswati III International Airport to OR Tambo International Airport, where they would connect to flights bound for China.
“The immigration authorities have failed to facilitate those arrangements despite their undertaking to cover all travel costs. There is no lawful basis for us to remain detained because they are no longer serving any criminal sentence after paying their fines,” Benguang submitted.
The veracity of these allegations is still to be tested in court. The respondents have yet to file their answering papers since they are opposed to the application. The Chinese nationals stated that they are being held in prison solely because they are awaiting deportation.
Benguang mentioned that Eswatini does not have a repatriation centre where foreign nationals awaiting deportation can be accommodated.
The applicants therefore propose that they be placed in a hotel or guesthouse until their departure, stating that they have sufficient financial means to pay for accommodation and meals.
Their affidavit also contains complaints about conditions at the Correctional facility.
The applicants allege that there is no hot running water, that they have gone for extended periods without washing, and that they are sleeping on the floor during winter.
They further state that they are guarded like convicted criminals despite having only been convicted of immigration offences.
The affidavit also states that the prison food does not meet their cultural dietary requirements.
On those grounds, they contend that their continued detention violates their constitutional rights to freedom, safety and security.
The applicants argue that the respondents should deport them immediately because they have already offered to meet the costs of their repatriation. They further state that they also sought permission to be deported through Mozambique, where they claim they would be accepted.
According to the affidavit, the respondents allegedly declined that request despite a letter from the Mozambican Embassy, which the applicants attached to their court papers. The applicants argue that the matter is urgent because they have already complied with the magistrates court order and there is no appeal or review pending against their convictions.
They contend that there is no legal justification for their continued detention and that they will not obtain substantial redress if the matter proceeds through the ordinary court process. They also submit that granting the interim relief sought would not prejudice the respondents because the criminal proceedings have already been concluded. The matter is pending in court.
Leave a comment