The Kingdom of Eswatini has announced its decision to repatriate five migrants who were recently deported there by the United States, despite not being citizens of the southern African nation. The move comes a day after U.S. officials defended the deportations, stating that the migrants’ home countries had declined to accept them.

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the deportees—originating from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen, and Cuba—had served prison terms in the U.S. for serious criminal offenses. Their removal marked the first execution of a controversial third-country deportation policy since the U.S.

Supreme Court allowed the Trump-era measure to proceed earlier this month.
The U.S. government justified the deportations by claiming that the migrants’ countries of origin had refused repatriation. “The flight included individuals whose own countries refused to take them back,” stated DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday.

However, Eswatini swiftly countered the U.S. narrative. In an official statement on Wednesday, government spokesperson Thabile Mdluli clarified that Eswatini was not the intended final destination for the deportees. Rather, the country had agreed to serve as a transit hub, working with the United States and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to ensure the individuals are returned to their respective home countries.

“The governments of Eswatini and the United States, along with the International Organization for Migration, will facilitate the transit of these inmates to their countries of origin,” Mdluli said.

The IOM, however, has distanced itself from the operation, stating it had no involvement in the migrants’ removal from the U.S. and was not asked to assist in their repatriation. This raises further questions about the coordination—or lack thereof—surrounding this deportation effort.

The case has sparked renewed debate over the ethics and legality of third-country deportations, particularly when they involve countries that may have had little prior connection to the individuals being removed. Critics argue that such measures may amount to diplomatic coercion and violate international norms regarding state sovereignty and refugee protections.

As Eswatini moves to return the deportees to their rightful homelands, the incident highlights growing tensions over immigration enforcement, international cooperation, and the responsibilities of both sending and receiving nations in addressing the global challenges of migration and deportation.

Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki has issued a stern warning to neighboring Ethiopia, cautioning against actions or rhetoric that could trigger a renewed conflict in the Horn of Africa. His comments follow recent public statements by Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed asserting Ethiopia’s need for direct access to the Red Sea, remarks that have raised alarms across the region and drawn international attention.

Afwerki’s statement comes at a particularly delicate time in the region’s history. Although Eritrea and Ethiopia were on opposing sides for much of the early 2000s, the two nations realigned during the 2020–2022 Tigray War, briefly partnering militarily against the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). However, the alliance was largely tactical, and underlying disputes between the two countries, particularly concerning port access, historical grievances, and regional dominance, remain unresolved.

Prime Minister Abiy’s recent remarks about Ethiopia’s geopolitical imperative to gain access to the Red Sea have revived tensions, with observers noting that such aspirations could be interpreted as veiled territorial ambitions. Eritrea, which controls a significant portion of the Red Sea coastline, views these overtures as a direct threat to its sovereignty and regional stability.

President Afwerki warned that any attempt to alter existing borders or impose unilateral solutions would risk plunging the region into further turmoil. “History has shown that coercion and unilateralism in this region yield nothing but suffering,” Afwerki reportedly said. He called on Ethiopian leaders to engage in dialogue and respect international norms while acknowledging the complex economic and security realities facing landlocked Ethiopia.

The situation is further complicated by the slow and partial implementation of the 2018 peace agreement between the two nations. While the deal formally ended a two-decade-long war, key issues such as border demarcation and economic cooperation remain unresolved. The fragile peace has often been characterized by mistrust and political posturing rather than meaningful reconciliation.

Analysts warn that the Horn of Africa, a region already plagued by instability, humanitarian crises, and competing foreign interests, cannot afford another round of conflict. Any military escalation between Eritrea and Ethiopia could have ripple effects across the Red Sea corridor, potentially drawing in neighboring states and disrupting international trade routes.

President Afwerki’s comments have been interpreted as both a warning and an appeal for diplomatic caution. He emphasized Eritrea’s commitment to peace but reaffirmed that the country would defend its territorial integrity if provoked.
International observers, including the African Union and the United Nations, have yet to comment formally on the escalating rhetoric, but sources indicate growing concern about the deteriorating tone of regional diplomacy.

As tensions simmer, the path forward appears uncertain. Much will depend on whether Ethiopia pursues its Red Sea aspirations through negotiation or confrontation, and how Eritrea and other regional actors respond in the weeks and months ahead.

France has officially ended its permanent military presence in Senegal, a symbolic move that marks the closing of a significant chapter in the long and complex relationship between the two countries. On Thursday, France handed over control of its last major military base in Senegal, Camp Geille in Ouakam, Dakar, bringing an end to more than two centuries of French armed presence in the West African nation.

During a ceremonial handover, General Pascal Ianni, commander of French forces in Africa, handed over a ceremonial key to Senegalese officials. As Senegalese troops raised their national flag and the anthem echoed through the base, the moment underscored a peaceful yet powerful assertion of national sovereignty.

“Today’s transfer of Camp Geille marks a new stage in the evolution of the partnership between our two armed forces,” General Ianni said. “It is a response to the Senegalese authorities’ wish to no longer have permanent foreign forces present on their territory.”

The withdrawal comes after Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, elected on a platform of reform and sovereignty, declared last year that the continued presence of French military bases was incompatible with Senegal’s full independence. The two governments agreed to a gradual and orderly process, which began in March with the handover of two other French military installations in Dakar.

Unlike the strained exits of French forces from other former colonies—such as Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, where new military governments expelled French troops and welcomed Russian security assistance—Senegal’s transition has been relatively smooth and diplomatic. France and Senegal have opted to maintain their military partnership in a revised form that focuses on cooperation rather than control.

General Mbaye Cissé, head of the Senegalese armed forces, affirmed that the end of France’s permanent base would not mean the end of collaboration. “The new agreement will allow Senegal to continue benefiting from training and the exchange of information,” he said. He also wished the departing French troops and their families a safe journey home and acknowledged the historical ties that bind the two nations.

France’s presence in Senegal traces back more than 200 years, beginning during colonial times when Dakar became a central hub for French West Africa. While France officially granted Senegal independence in 1960, its military footprint in the country persisted through strategic bases and bilateral defence agreements—something that has drawn increasing scrutiny from Senegalese citizens and civil society groups over the years.

There are also lingering demands for France to fully acknowledge and investigate historical injustices, including the massacre of African soldiers in 1944. These soldiers, known as “Tirailleurs Sénégalais,” fought for France during World War II but were executed by French forces in Thiaroye after protesting unfair treatment.

As France continues a broader military retreat from the Sahel and West Africa amid growing regional skepticism of foreign influence, the handover of Camp Geille represents more than a logistical shift—it is a statement of changing geopolitical priorities in Francophone Africa. Yet, both sides hope their long and complex history can form the basis of a modern, mutual partnership built on respect, rather than residual colonial dynamics.