A storm is brewing over a High Court ruling on the future of the Chagos Islands after it emerged that key details about the timing of the judgment cannot be accessed, even under Freedom of Information laws.
The decision, handed down on 10 March, followed a delay of more than four months after an urgent hearing last October, an unusually long wait for what is meant to be a low-threshold judicial review permission stage.
Now fresh questions are being asked about how the process was handled, and who knew what, and when.
The case, brought on behalf of British Chagossians and supported by the Great British PAC, sought to establish that the Chagossian people must be consulted and have a say over the future of their homeland.
Despite the court recognising the urgency of the case and fast-tracking it, the judgment did not arrive until March, by which time political developments surrounding the islands had continued at pace.
During those four months, negotiations advanced, parliamentary processes moved forward, and debate intensified over the future of the strategically vital territory.
Critics say the delay raises the risk that legal scrutiny could be overtaken by political decisions.
But it is what happened just days before the ruling that has sparked the greatest intrigue.
Mauritius Attorney General Gavin Glover appeared, on 6 March, to indicate that the judgment would be delivered imminently, before any formal notification had been widely circulated to the parties involved in the case.
How a foreign government’s senior legal officer appeared to have insight into the timing of a UK High Court judgment has not been explained.
Courts normally communicate judgment dates directly to the parties involved, not external figures.
In an attempt to uncover the timeline, a Freedom of Information request was submitted to the Ministry of Justice.
The response? The information cannot be accessed.
Officials confirmed that the details, if held, sit within court records rather than administrative systems, placing them outside the scope of FOI laws.
In other words, the public cannot find out through standard transparency routes when the decision was scheduled or who was told.
Claire Bullivant, CEO of the Great British PAC, said the sequence of events demanded answers.
“This situation raises serious and legitimate concerns. The court itself recognised the importance of the issues at stake, yet it then took more than four months to deliver a decision at what is meant to be a low-threshold stage.
“The outcome has left many asking how a case centred on whether a people should be consulted about the future of their own homeland was refused permission to proceed.
“It is also difficult to understand how a foreign government’s Attorney General, actively involved in negotiations over the future of the Chagos Islands, appeared to have insight into the timing of the judgment before those directly involved in the case.
“There may be explanations, but taken together, the delay, the timing, and the sequence of events raise understandable concerns.”
The case should not be confused with a separate, more recent Judicial Review, also backed by the Great British PAC, in which Chagossians have now successfully secured the right to remain on the islands.
Meanwhile, the transparency battle is far from over.
The matter has now been referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office, while further enquiries have been sent directly to the Administrative Court.
For now, two questions refuse to go away.
Why did a supposedly urgent decision take more than four months?
And how did knowledge of its timing appear to travel beyond the courtroom before the parties themselves were formally informed?
Until those questions are answered, this controversy is unlikely to fade.
