```html US Deportations to Africa Raise Legal and Ethical Concerns

The United States' recent practice of deporting migrants to African countries, even when those countries are not their origin, is sparking international concern. The deportations, justified by the US government as targeting convicted criminals whose home countries refuse to take them back, have raised questions about international law, human rights, and the potential for exploitation of vulnerable nations.

Deportations to Eswatini and South Sudan

In a move that has drawn condemnation from human rights organizations and legal experts, the US administration recently deported 12 men from countries including Mexico, Myanmar, and Yemen to Eswatini and South Sudan. One South Sudanese man was also returned to his home country. These actions are part of a broader policy, reportedly initiated under the previous Trump administration, to expand deportation destinations beyond Central and South America.

The legality of these "third-country deportations" hinges on several factors, primarily the safety and stability of the receiving country and the deportees' access to due process.

International Law and "Non-Refoulement"

Professor Ray Brescia, from Albany Law School in the US, explains that third-country deportations can be legal under specific circumstances. "The whole concept of third-country removal has to be seen in light of the broader concept of asylum," he says. "There is a principle in international law - non-refoulement - which means you are not supposed to return someone to their home country if it's unsafe for them, so a third country could provide a safe option."

However, this principle extends to the third country itself. Deporting individuals to a nation where they face persecution, torture, or other serious human rights violations would violate international law. The UK Supreme Court's 2023 decision to block the government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda highlights this principle.

Due Process and Access to Legal Support

Crucially, migrants must have the opportunity to challenge their deportation, particularly if the destination country is deemed unsafe. This requires access to legal representation and the ability to present evidence from credible sources, such as UN reports or US State Department findings. Dr. Alice Edwards, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, emphasizes the importance of assessing the legal status, potential detention, and housing conditions the migrants will face in the receiving country.

However, access to timely legal support remains a significant obstacle. "It takes significant effort and access to a lawyer who can act quickly," says Prof. Brescia. "That legal route may not be available to everyone."

Concerns Regarding Eswatini and South Sudan

The choice of Eswatini and South Sudan as deportation destinations has amplified concerns. Professor David Super of Georgetown University Law Center argues that the US is likely violating international law. "There's no evidence the US is giving people a chance to challenge their deportation, and they're not permitted to send people to countries where they might face oppression. South Sudan and Eswatini have serious questions about their human rights records," he stated.

The US State Department currently advises against all travel to South Sudan, citing crime, armed conflict, and kidnapping risks. The country, grappling with widespread poverty and political instability, has been on the brink of renewed civil war. Reports indicate that deportees to South Sudan are being held in a detention facility in Juba known for its harsh conditions.

While Eswatini officials claim the migrants are in a correctional facility and will be repatriated with IOM support, the US State Department acknowledges problems of overcrowding, poor ventilation, and inadequate healthcare in Eswatini's prisons. The Eswatini government has not clarified how long the deportees will remain in the country or whether they will serve out their sentences there.

Growing Backlash and Political Motivations

The deportations have triggered a backlash within Eswatini. The People's United Democratic Movement (Pudemo), the country's largest opposition party, has condemned the agreement as "human trafficking disguised as a deportation deal." Pro-democracy activists fear Eswatini is becoming a "dumping ground for criminals."

The motivations behind Eswatini and South Sudan's willingness to accept deportees remain unclear. Eswatini officials cite their strong ties with the US, but the full details of the agreements are classified. Prof. Brescia suggests that some countries may fear US retaliation, such as visa restrictions or tariffs, if they refuse. In April, the US revoked all visas for South Sudanese nationals after the country refused to accept a deported citizen.

Political activist Agel Rich Machar suggests that South Sudan's agreement is linked to its desire for the US to lift sanctions on Vice-President Benjamin Bol Mel, who was sanctioned in 2021 for alleged corruption.

A "Deeply Flawed Idea"?

Regardless of legality, third-country deportations raise fundamental ethical questions. Dr. Edwards argues that they often place vulnerable individuals in unfamiliar environments with limited support or legal status. "It's a deeply flawed idea," she concludes, emphasizing that the human rights community is not against all deportations, but only those where individuals face human rights violations.

The practice also raises concerns about the potential for the US to leverage its economic and political power to pressure vulnerable African nations into accepting deportees, potentially exacerbating existing social and economic challenges. ```