Roberto Mosquera del Peral, who had served a sentence for homicide in Miami, was sent to that African country last summer
EFE / 14ymedio, Nairobi / Madrid, April 11, 2026 – The Supreme Court of Eswatini, the former Swaziland, ruled in favor of four of the migrants deported by the United States to that small African kingdom and recognized their right to meet with a lawyer, after spending nine months without in-person access to legal assistance. Among them is the Cuban Roberto Mosquera del Peral, sent to the country last summer as part of the new policy of expulsions to third states promoted by the Trump administration.
The court’s decision confirms an earlier ruling by a lower court, which had been challenged by the Eswatini government. The case refers to the first group of deportees that Washington sent to Eswatini in July 2025: initially there were five men, although one of them was later repatriated.
The judicial resolution does not end the case nor immediately improve the underlying situation of the deportees, but it does represent a defeat for the Eswatini executive, which had argued that those men did not have the right to a defense because, formally, they were not detained nor had they been charged with any crime in the country. It also claimed that they did not wish to meet with the local lawyer Sibusiso Nhlabatsi, who acts on behalf of the attorneys representing them from the United States and who until now had only been able to speak with them by phone.
Amnesty International (AI) welcomed the ruling, although it warned that the main problem remains unchanged. “The Supreme Court’s ruling represents an important step in defending the right to access a lawyer for people who have been illegally transferred by the U.S. to Eswatini,” said Vongai Chikwanda, regional deputy director of the organization for East and Southern Africa.
“No one should be transferred to a country in violation of international law guarantees, only to then be secretly detained without a clear legal process”
The NGO, however, stressed that access to a lawyer does not correct the most serious violations reported for months. According to AI, these transfers are part of an abusive practice that leaves deportees trapped in countries with which they have no connection, without a clear judicial process, and without guarantees against a new expulsion.
“No one should be transferred to a country in violation of international law guarantees, only to then be secretly detained without a clear legal process, without access to lawyers, and without protection against a subsequent illegal expulsion,” the organization insisted.
The case of Mosquera del Peral illustrates this policy. The Cuban man had served a sentence for homicide in Miami and was one of the individuals sent by Washington to Eswatini after his country of origin, like others, refused to accept him. He traveled with nationals from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, and Yemen. Over the months, the number of deportees transferred to that African kingdom grew to at least fifteen people, although two of them have already been returned to their countries, Jamaica and Cambodia.
Last October, Mosquera’s lawyer, Alma David, reported that the Cuban had been held for more than three months without charges in the maximum-security prison of Matsapha, in Eswatini. The attorney said at the time that her client had begun a hunger strike to protest his detention and warned that his life was in danger, while demanding that he be allowed access to a lawyer in that African country.
Washington agreed to pay 5.1 million dollars to the Eswatini government, as acknowledged by the kingdom’s authorities
According to complaints filed in court and by human rights organizations, the deportees have remained detained without charges and in isolation in the maximum-security prison of Matsapha, near Mbabane, the capital of Eswatini. The local government denies that these are illegal detentions, but that has been precisely one of the central issues in the litigation.
As early as last February, Eswatini’s judiciary rejected an appeal that sought to halt the deportation of third-country nationals from the United States. That lawsuit had been filed in August, shortly after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security confirmed the transfer of the first five foreigners to the African country.
The agreement was not free. Washington agreed to pay 5.1 million dollars to the Eswatini government, as the kingdom’s authorities acknowledged. That figure further fueled criticism from activists and legal experts, who see in these agreements an externalization of the U.S. migration system: those expelled leave American territory but do not necessarily return to their countries of origin, instead being sent to third states willing to receive them in exchange for financial compensation.
Nine months after their arrival at a maximum-security prison in a foreign country, they remain in a situation of legal limbo
Since returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump has hardened his migration policy and promoted rapid expulsions with the support of several countries. In addition to Eswatini, Washington has reached similar agreements with El Salvador, Ghana, Rwanda, Uganda, South Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Humanitarian organizations believe these agreements expose hundreds of people to a chain of abuses: arbitrary detention, mistreatment, isolation, and the risk of being sent to places where they may face persecution, torture, or degrading treatment. For this reason, they have called on several African governments to refuse to become destinations for migrants expelled from the United States.
In the case of Eswatini, the Supreme Court’s ruling opens a legal window for the deportees but does not clarify how long they will remain detained or what their final destination will be. Nor does it resolve the underlying issue: whether a country can accept people expelled from another state and keep them detained for months, without charges, without transparency, and without explaining what will happen to them.
For Mosquera del Peral and the other men, the ruling means at least a possibility of defense that had until now been denied to them. But nine months after their arrival at a maximum-security prison in a foreign country, they remain in a situation of legal limbo, turned into pawns of a migration policy that has moved the problem far from the U.S. border.
Translated by Regina Anavy
______________________
COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.