BY MBONGENI NDLELA
MBABANE – South African authorities have rejected allegations that Eswatini has been secretly releasing foreign nationals deported from the United States and allowing them to cross illegally into South Africa, dismissing claims that have generated controversy and widespread speculation on social media.
The clarification from South Africa’s Border Management Authority (BMA) and Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) comes as the Government of Eswatini has released a detailed account confirming that ten foreign nationals have been repatriated to their respective countries of origin since September 2025.
The developments have challenged reports suggesting that Eswatini was quietly releasing deportees into neighbouring South Africa, with some allegedly crossing the border at night through informal routes.
South Africa’s border authorities have now publicly rejected these allegations, explaining that security and immigration controls remain in place along the border with Eswatini.
DIRCO spokesperson Clayson Monyela was equally dismissive when approached by South African publication Africa Daily on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, about the allegations.
“It’s not true,” Monyela responded, according to the publication.
The response is significant because South Africa is the country alleged to be receiving the deportees through illegal border crossings.
Rather than confirming the allegations, its authorities have disputed them, providing an important clarification to a matter that has attracted considerable attention in both countries.
The BMA, through its spokesperson Mmemme Mogotsi, explained that South Africa’s land ports of entry with Eswatini remain secured, with access controls implemented at designated entry and exit points.
The authority said its officers, working alongside other law-enforcement agencies, continued monitoring border movements and conducting operations aimed at preventing illegal entry, including human smuggling and trafficking.
It further explained that international passengers travelling through South African airports for connecting flights do not necessarily enter the country for immigration purposes.
This clarification is particularly important because some of the controversy arose from claims that deportees leaving Eswatini had travelled through Johannesburg.
However, using an international airport as a transit point does not automatically mean that a foreign national has entered South Africa illegally or has been released into the country’s communities.
International travel frequently requires passengers to connect through airports in countries other than their final destinations.
The BMA’s explanation therefore draws an important distinction between lawful international transit and illegal border crossings, two entirely different immigration matters that should not be confused.
Meanwhile, the Government of Eswatini has moved to provide further clarity on the repatriation programme, releasing a comprehensive statement on Thursday, October 8, 2026, detailing the movement of foreign nationals who were temporarily accommodated in the Kingdom under an agreement with the United States Government.
Acting Government Spokesperson Thabile Mdluli said Government was concerned about misleading reports circulating regarding the repatriation of third-country nationals, warning that such information had the potential to create unnecessary anxiety, particularly in neighbouring countries.
Mdluli explained that Eswatini’s responsibility under the arrangement with Washington had always been to temporarily accommodate the foreign nationals and facilitate their eventual repatriation to their respective countries of origin.
She emphasised that this position was communicated in July 2025, when the first group arrived in the Kingdom.
In other words, Eswatini was not intended to become the permanent home of the deportees. Its role was to provide temporary accommodation while arrangements were made for their onward travel.
According to the Government statement, the Kingdom has successfully facilitated the repatriation of ten foreign nationals, working closely with international partners and other relevant stakeholders.
The first repatriation took place in September 2025 when one individual was returned to Jamaica.
In March 2026, another foreign national was repatriated to Cambodia.
Three more individuals left the Kingdom in August 2026, returning to Mauritania, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia.
September 2026 saw four additional repatriations involving nationals returning to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Yemen and Belize.
The latest repatriation took place in October 2026 when a national of Laos was returned to his country of origin.
These figures mean that ten individuals have been repatriated to nine countries, with the Democratic Republic of Congo receiving two of them.
Government maintains that the repatriations were conducted without incident and that none of the individuals was mistakenly sent to an incorrect country.
It further stated that none of those repatriated had posed a threat or caused harm to members of the public during the repatriation process.
Mdluli explained that the exercise involves cooperation between national and international authorities to ensure that the movement of foreign nationals complies with applicable immigration laws.
Such arrangements include facilitating travel through transit countries where necessary.
The Government’s explanation is particularly relevant to the allegations concerning South Africa because international repatriation does not always involve direct flights from the country temporarily accommodating an individual to their country of origin.
Depending on available flight connections, immigration requirements and other logistical arrangements, travellers may have to pass through other countries before reaching their destinations.
It would therefore be misleading to automatically interpret the use of a neighbouring country’s airport as evidence that someone has been secretly released into that country.
The Government’s position is that the repatriations were undertaken through established procedures, with the cooperation of the relevant authorities.
This account is supported by earlier Government announcements confirming that three foreign nationals from Yemen, Belize and Laos had voluntarily departed Eswatini between September 8 and October 4, 2026.
The latest developments should also serve as an important reminder about the responsibility that comes with sharing information, particularly on social media platforms such as Facebook.
There is nothing wrong with citizens questioning Government decisions, including the agreement between Eswatini and the United States.
Public scrutiny is necessary, especially when agreements involve immigration, national security and the use of public resources.
However, there is a difference between raising legitimate questions and circulating allegations as established facts without sufficient evidence.
In this particular matter, claims about secret border crossings attracted attention and prompted heated discussions. Yet, when the relevant South African authorities responded, they rejected the allegations.
Surely, the position of the country supposedly receiving these foreign nationals illegally deserves serious consideration.
It would make little sense to give widespread attention to allegations concerning South Africa while disregarding clarification from the South African institutions directly responsible for immigration and border security.
This does not mean that official statements should never be questioned. Governments must remain accountable, and journalists have a responsibility to independently examine information.
However, those making allegations must also recognise the importance of supporting their claims with credible evidence.
A Facebook post does not become factual simply because it attracts hundreds of comments or is shared repeatedly.
Equally, political differences should not determine which facts people are prepared to accept.
Citizens may disagree with the Government’s decision to accommodate foreign nationals deported from the United States, but such disagreement does not establish that the Kingdom is illegally transferring individuals into South Africa.
These are separate issues, and responsible public debate requires that they be treated as such.
At the same time, the latest clarification does not mean that every question surrounding the agreement with Washington has been answered.
The arrangement has attracted international attention, including concerns from human rights organisations about the treatment, detention and legal protections afforded to the foreign nationals.
Such matters remain legitimate subjects for public scrutiny and deserve proper examination.
The Government also has a responsibility to continue providing accurate information about the repatriation programme, including the number of foreign nationals remaining in the Kingdom and the progress being made towards their return home.
Nevertheless, the information released by Eswatini on October 8 provides a clearer picture of the repatriation process and the countries to which the ten individuals have been returned.
More importantly, South Africa’s rejection of the illegal-border-crossing allegations adds weight to the need for greater caution before circulating alarming reports.
Eswatini and South Africa share close diplomatic, economic and social relations, making responsible communication particularly important when matters involving border security arise.
Unsubstantiated allegations about illegal immigration can create unnecessary public anxiety and potentially strain relations between neighbouring countries.
Government’s latest statement demonstrates the importance of providing detailed information rather than allowing speculation to dominate public discussion.
It also highlights why citizens should take time to establish the facts before reaching conclusions.
Ultimately, the issue is not whether people should support or oppose the arrangement between Eswatini and the United States. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
The question is whether those opinions are informed by credible information.
South Africa has rejected allegations that Eswatini is secretly releasing deportees into its territory. Eswatini has provided a detailed record of ten repatriations to countries of origin.
These developments deserve to be considered fairly alongside any credible evidence that may emerge.
For Facebook users, there is a simple lesson: before sharing an allegation, establish where it originated, whether evidence has been presented and what the relevant authorities have said.
(Courtesy Pic)
