A Laotian man sent by the United States to Eswatini in July 2025 has left prison after more than 14 months, according to his U.S.-based lawyer. Attorney Tin Thanh Nguyen told the Associated Press that Phone Chomsavanh had departed Eswatini, landed in Johannesburg and was travelling onward to Laos on Sunday, October 4. The reported release ends one prolonged detention, but it does not settle the legal or humanitarian questions surrounding Washington’s use of third countries for deportations.
The central fact is attributed, not independently announced by Eswatini. AP based its report on Nguyen’s statement and said Eswatini government spokesperson Thabile Mdluli had not acknowledged the release when the story was published. There was therefore no official Eswatini account at that point of when Chomsavanh left Matsapha Correctional Complex, what legal process authorised his departure or what arrangements awaited him in Laos. Those gaps matter in a developing story and should not be filled with assumptions.
What is known—and what remains unconfirmed
Chomsavanh was among five men whom the United States transferred to Eswatini in July 2025. AP reported that all five had serious criminal convictions in the United States but had completed their sentences before being sent to the Southern African kingdom. Nguyen said his client faced no charges in Eswatini. Detention after a completed sentence is different from serving a new criminal punishment, and the public record reviewed for this report does not show that an Eswatini court convicted Chomsavanh of an offence.
The lawyer also described a life history that complicates the destination. According to Nguyen, Chomsavanh was born in a refugee camp in Thailand, moved to the United States at the age of seven and had never lived in Laos. His reported journey toward Laos may resolve where he goes next, but it does not by itself answer questions about his legal status, family links, support or safety after arrival. Confirmation that he reached Laos and information about the terms of his admission were not available in the October 4 report.
Eswatini’s role is part of a broader arrangement rather than an isolated transfer. AP reported that a U.S.–Eswatini agreement included $5.1 million in funding and contemplated the reception of about 30 people. The precise services, detention costs, safeguards and oversight attached to that money deserve public scrutiny. A payment figure in an agreement is not proof that every amount has been spent, nor does accepting deportees establish that every individual case has received judicial review.
Eswatini’s place in a wider deportation system
Advocacy groups Refugees International and Human Rights First said in an August 18 tracker that the United States had transferred more than 23,000 people to 26 third countries between January 20, 2025, and August 15, 2026. Their dated count included more than 330 people sent to African countries and documented repeated flights to Eswatini and other states. Those are the organisations’ findings, not a government audit, but they show that Chomsavanh’s case sits inside a system operating across multiple borders.
The advocacy groups argue that third-country transfers can expose people to persecution, torture or onward removal to another unsafe country—a danger lawyers call chain refoulement. The U.S. administration takes a different position. It says third-country removals are an enforcement tool for people with final removal orders when their countries of origin will not accept them. Both claims must be tested against the procedure used in each case: what notice the person received, what country was named and whether there was a meaningful chance to raise a fear-based objection before departure.
That procedural question is now before the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. The First Circuit largely upheld a judgment requiring notice and a meaningful opportunity for covered people to raise claims that they could face persecution or torture in a proposed destination. Court records describe disputes over how much notice is required, when U.S. officials may rely on diplomatic assurances and whether the government’s guidance complies with federal law and due process.
A live Supreme Court dispute, not a final ruling
On September 29, the Supreme Court granted the government a temporary stay and agreed to hear the case, with oral argument scheduled for December 9, 2026. The stay allows the challenged policy to operate while the litigation continues; it is not a final decision that the transfers are lawful. Three justices would have denied the stay. The court’s eventual merits ruling could shape how much warning and opportunity to object must precede a removal to a country other than the person’s homeland.
For African receiving states, the issue reaches beyond U.S. immigration politics. Each agreement can place local prisons, courts, ministries and public funds inside an enforcement chain designed abroad. Legislatures and civil society have legitimate questions about executive authority, detention rules, access to lawyers, medical care, public accounting and what happens if a destination country refuses to keep or receive a transferred person. Transparency is especially important when the individuals have already completed the sentences that led to their imprisonment in the United States.
Chomsavanh’s reported departure is significant because it changes the immediate position of one person held in Eswatini for more than a year. It does not confirm the fate of the other men transferred with him, validate every third-country agreement or end the Supreme Court dispute. The next verifiable developments to watch are an official Eswatini account, confirmation of his arrival and status in Laos, information about the people who remain detained, and the December 9 argument over the safeguards the United States must provide before another transfer occurs.
