“If Keir Starmer had any sense, scrapping the Chagos Surrender Treaty would be his next u-turn” – Dame Priti Patel.
The legal battle to ensure Chagossians are lawfully consulted before the UK Government signs away sovereignty of their homeland has cleared a major first hurdle in the High Court.
The Judicial Review, launched by Chagossian claimant Louis Misley Mandarin with support from the Great British PAC, has been formally accepted by the court and granted an expedited timetable.
This means the Government must now file its legal defence by 4 July, drastically shortening its usual 28-day window. A High Court judge is expected to review the matter around 11 July, potentially triggering a full hearing by the end of the month.
In his written order, the judge recognised the exceptional urgency and quality of the case, citing the “very detailed grounds and a 1,689-page bundle” submitted by the claimants, a clear signal that the Court is taking the matter seriously.
The case argues that the UK Government has acted unlawfully by failing to consult Chagossians before entering sovereignty negotiations with Mauritius. The claim invokes the Equality Act 2010, international law, and principles of administrative fairness to assert that the Chagossian people, recognised by the UK as British citizens and a distinct ethnic group, have a legal right to be heard before any decision is made on their homeland.
Claire Bullivant, CEO of the Great British PAC, said:
“This is a huge step forward. The courts have recognised the urgency and importance of this case. We now call on Parliament to suspend any process related to Chagos sovereignty until the Court has ruled. Justice demands no less.”
Louis Misley Mandarin, claimant and Chagossian, added:
“We are fighting to be heard, not ignored again. Our people deserve consultation, not secrecy.”
This court case could be the bloody battle that fatally weakens the Government’s plan to give away the islands, but campaigners are clear that the war will be won with the hearts and minds of the public, and crucially, of backbench Labour MPs. They are being urged to recognise that this is a deal done without the consent of the Chagossians, and at considerable financial cost, at a time when public services and benefits are under strain.
“How can Labour justify this huge cost of billions when they say we don’t have money for schools, the NHS, or social care? How can they possibly justify this deal when their own manifesto talks about championing prosperity through foreign policy?” Bullivant added. “This is not prosperity, it’s an unjust, unaffordable handover made without proper consultation.”
Shadow Home Secretary Priti Patel also weighed in, stating:
“Labour have betrayed British Chagossians with their shambolic £30bn Chagos Surrender Treaty. This legal challenge is exposing the appalling way that hypocritical Labour ministers who talk up their commitments to human rights are neglecting British Chagossians. Labour cannot be trusted and it’s disgraceful that Keir Starmer and David ‘Calamity’ Lammy are more interested in giving Mauritius billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ to fund tax cuts there than in respecting British Chagossians, defending our security and protecting our public finances.
“Labour needs to delay the process to ratify this Treaty to allow court proceedings to continue and give the House of Commons a debate and vote. If Keir Starmer had any sense, scrapping the Chagos Surrender Treaty would be his next u-turn.”
The claimants are now urging MPs to suspend any parliamentary process related to Chagos sovereignty, scheduled to conclude on 3 July, until the Court has had a chance to rule.
Meanwhile, the campaign to underwrite the legal costs continues. The Judicial Review has been made possible by the generous support of the Great British PAC and its Chairman, Ben Habib, but further contributions are needed.
Supporters are encouraged to donate via: www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/savechagos.
I wish you every success in killing off this awful arrangement.
Ultimately, however, the next govt needs to simply exit the arrangement. Even Mauritius knows that the arrangements can be changed, as evidenced by their attempt to re-open the terms after it was signed. That could come back to bite them – and it should.