The missing words: DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS FOR ALL CHAGOSSIANS
With rising political activity in parliament and criticism of the Chagos Islands treaty by committees in the UN, how can the democratic rights for all Chagossians finally be centre stage? - by Tessa Clarke and Alexia Psalti, THE CHAGOS FILES
Chagossians outside the High Court, London, July 2018/Tessa ClarkeNow the UK Government’s Chagos Islands sovereignty treaty deal has been presented to parliament, arguing for the democratic rights of all Chagossians to live on the islands has become even more urgent.
On 22 May the British Government laid down the British Indian Ocean Territory (Sovereignty and Constitutional Arrangements) Bill in the Houses of Parliament. It means that those who believe Chagossian people should have a democratic right to live back on the islands they and their families were deported from sixty years ago have 21 days to challenge the treaty and get it voted down by parliament.
If you read the treaty the only things it says Chagossians will benefit from are:
Resettlement allowance (excluding Diego Garcia):
Article 6 explicitly states Mauritius "is free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago other than Diego Garcia". Importantly this does not guarantee resettlement; it merely permits it under Mauritian regulation.
Trust Fund for Chagossians:
Article 11 and the accompanying preamble commit the UK to capitalise a Trust Fund, established by Mauritius, "for the benefit of Chagossians". However, details of funding amounts, governance, disbursement criteria, and eligibility are delegated to the Mauritian authorities.
And what of Chagossians’ democratic rights?
Does the Government's treaty bill mention the right of Chagossians to resettle on the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia? Answer: No
Are the words “self determination for the Chagossian people” or any other acknowledgement of the political rights of Chagossians on the islands in the treaty bill? Answer: No
In the entire approximately 9,000-word treaty document the word Chagossian or Chagossians is mentioned only six times.
United on re-settlement; divided on how
Chagossian people are united in their desire to re-settle on the islands. There is not a single Chagossian we have met or heard who oppose this. Yet how resettlement should come about is the subject of fierce discussion, and now there are reports of physical threats in Mauritius against those who oppose the handover of sovereignty to the former colony.
One way to address this division would be for political parties in the UK to encourage the unity of all Chagossians. Not only by focusing on their democratic rights. But by organising actions and campaigns that bring them together too. However not all Chagossian groups or individuals are invited to the same events. While some Chagossian people are said to have been consulted, others view various organised zoom meetings as insulting. Others say their views are ignored.
Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative) © House of Commons, 21 November 2024The Early Day Motion (EDM) launched on 4 June 2025, organised jointly by Conservative shadow cabinet minister Kemi Badenoch and Reform leader Nigel Farage, is a start. It states:
“That the Agreement, done at London and Port Louis on 22 May 2025, between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, should not be ratified.”
An EDM can focus parliamentary attention, lobby the Government to schedule a debate and force a Commons vote on ratification during the 21-day period, thus giving MPs a chance to block the treaty.
Nigel Farage MP (Clacton, Reform UK), © House of Commons 14 May 2025Yet the EDM – currently supported by 92 MPs – merely opposes the treaty; it doesn’t list the rights they think the Chagossians should have. The EDM would be helped with support from some Labour MPs who have a 174 seat majority in parliament. The only Labour MP to sign the EDM is Peter Lamb, the member for Crawley, the area where the largest community of Chagossians is in the UK.
Then there’s the Bill announced by Priti Patel, Shadow Foreign Secretary on 10 June. This is supported by BIOT Citizen, one of the Chagossian campaign groups that opposes Mauritian sovereignty. The Bill aims “to defend British sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, protect British taxpayers and promote the rights of Chagossians”
Does it mention the right of Chagossians to resettle on the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia? Answer: No
Are the words “self determination for the Chagossian people” or anything similar in the Bill? Answer: No, only a demand that the Secretary of State “consult and engage with British Chagossians.”
At least the Bill recognises that it is parliament, made up of our democratically elected representatives, who should debate and decide this issue of territory and rights, not a Government using ancient prerogative powers.
The only organisation recently to flag up Chagossians’ democratic rights is various committee personnel at the United Nations, an organisation whose leaders are not directly elected by the public.
Nicolas Levrat, Special Rapporteur on minority issues, K.P. Ashwini, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Bernard Duhaime, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, and Bina D'Costa, Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent have recently stated that the treaty is “at variance with the Chagossians’ right to return.”
They added, “we call for the ratification of the agreement to be suspended and for a new agreement to be negotiated that fully guarantees the rights of the Chagossian people to return to all islands of the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.”
However an unelected group from an organisation not directly accountable to the people calling for the democratic rights of a group while also saying democratically elected governments should undo treaties, is not the way forward either.
Over the last few months THE CHAGOS FILES has been following the Chagossians, parliamentary, public and media coverage and debate on these issues, and trying to get answers on questions to do with Chagossians’ democratic rights and the process the Government are using to get the treaty ratified.
To date the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has not given us a reply to questions about how the deal is to go through parliament. The FCDO did reply last week to a news report about the United Nations Committee that opposes the treaty. A Foreign Office spokesperson told the BBC that despite opposition by some within the UN, the UK-Mauritius agreement had been "welcomed by international organisations, including the UN secretary general".
Prime Minister Keir Starmer at a press conference following the signing of the chagos deal, Picture by Simon Dawson/No 10 Downing Street 22 May 2025Meanwhile inside parliament last week, those from the Conservative and Reform parties asking questions of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in the House of Commons and opposing the agreement were dismissed sharply as being in the same “column” as “our adversaries” Russian, China and Iran. As if the only democratic and principled position was to hand over the islands to Mauritius while ignoring the outcry from those Chagossians in Britain (and Mauritius, and other countries) and others opposing it.
Professor Phillipe Sands KC, the British international lawyer who represented Mauritius at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which advised Britain to hand over the Chagos Islands, appeared at a House of Lords Committee hearing this month. “The Chagossian community is divided and I respect that division," he said, adding that, "Most in Mauritius and Seychelles made very clear [...] that they wish this deal to go ahead." [Watch part of the hearing here.]
How does he know? There has been no Referendum among Chagossians, a large proportion of which live in Britain. Instead leaders of various Chagossian groups around the world have made claims they represent the majority which is simply claims-making, not evidence and no replacement for a democratic process to decide what the majority want.
It is also news to Claudette Lefade, President of the Chagossian Asylum Group in Mauritius. She counts the size of her group as significant. As does BIOT Citizen group in Mauritius.
The treaty started undemocratically; will it end so?
Ever since the treaty was announced as being agreed between Pravind Jugnauth then Prime Minister of Mauritius and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on 3 October last year, negotiations have been done secretively. In the British system Royal Prerogative powers allow British governments to negotiate foreign policy first and present their agreements to parliament second. In this case the treaty was announced without any significant public debate or transparency about the issues the deal raises beforehand either.
Although this treaty transfers British sovereign territory to another state, the British public was not given a direct say and nor were the Chagossian people in the form of a Referendum, for example.
Compared to other communities connected to Britain through its colonial legacy or overseas territories, the treatment of the Chagossians stands out as uniquely neglectful and unjust. Unlike the Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarians who were granted referenda to determine the future of their territory, the Chagossians have never been offered that same democratic right.
Like many people subject to a colonial power’s divide and rule policy will confirm, Chagossian people have been deported, geographically split up, oppressed, encouraged to politically oppose each other and today, disagree among each other about ways of campaigning and take sides against each other with regards the interpretation of their democratic rights.
In this context purporting to do right by Chagossians’ wishes without a democratic mandate from them is ludicrous. As The Rt Hon. the Lord Grocott pointed out at the International Relations and Defence Committee meeting on the ‘Implications of the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago’ on 11 June, the principle of self determination has governed the UK view of what should happen to the remainders of the British Empire, notably in the cases of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar.
“As in any group of people, as Professor Sands has already said, you are not going to get absolute unanimity among the Chagossians as to whether it should be Mauritian, British or whatever. You will not in any group of people anywhere, but sooner or later someone has to make a decision as to what the view is. That is decided by arithmetic.”
So whose views did the UK Government seem to most listen to? Apart from their own political party it was the view of international lawyers and judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the British Government listened to more and hailed as the deciding voice along with the views of foreign governments.
It’s time that democratic rights for all Chagossians were put centre stage. UK and Mauritius Governments, opposition politicians and British and Mauritian voters - are you listening?
Tessa Clarke and Alexia Psalti/18 June 2025