“The Government may hope that the threat of financial ruin will force us to back down… but I will NOT walk away” – Misley Mandarin.
The Government has been accused of attempting to “intimidate” claimants in a legal challenge over the future of the Chagos Islands, after formally opposing a cap on legal costs that could protect them from financial ruin.
In a letter submitted to the High Court earlier this month, Government lawyers confirmed they would resist any move to limit the potential costs in a Judicial Review brought by Louis Misley Mandarin and his father, Louis Michel Mandarin, British citizens of Chagossian heritage.
The case, backed by the campaign group Great British PAC, seeks to challenge the UK’s decision to sign a treaty with Mauritius transferring sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago, without consulting the Chagossian community.
The claimants argue that the UK–Mauritius Agreement, signed in May by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, violates the principles of self-determination and democratic consultation.
Although the High Court has yet to decide whether to allow the case to proceed, Government lawyers have already objected to the imposition of a protective costs order (PCO), a mechanism often used in public interest cases to limit the financial risk for individual claimants.
Claimant Louis ‘Misley’ Mandarin told the Conservative Post:
“I will not be intimidated out of seeking justice for my family and my community. This case is about more than just legal arguments, it’s about the rights of people who have been ignored for too long.
“The Government may hope that the threat of financial ruin will force us to back down, but we are standing up because this matters. The Chagossian community has a right to be heard, and I will not walk away just because the path is difficult or expensive.
“My father and I are asking for fairness. Justice should not depend on how much money you have. We are determined to see this through, and we believe the British public understands why this case must be heard.”
Silenced by fear
Claire Bullivant, CEO of Great British PAC, described the Government’s position as “deeply troubling” and warned that it could deter ordinary citizens from holding the state to account.
“It effectively says that unless someone can afford the risk of high legal bills, they don’t get to challenge government decisions. That undermines access to justice and the core principles of fairness and equality before the law,” she said.
“Misley and his father are not acting for personal gain. They’re fighting for their community and for accountability. Their voices should not be silenced by fear.”
Protective cost caps are typically used in public law challenges to ensure individuals can bring important cases without facing potentially crippling costs. Campaigners warn that the Government’s early opposition to such a cap, before the court has even granted permission for the case to proceed, could set a chilling precedent.
The Great British PAC has now raised over £40,000 to fund the claim, which has already garnered more than 10,000 signatures in support. The organisation says the lack of cost protection may ultimately discourage vulnerable communities from seeking legal redress against the Government.
Sovereignty deal under fire
The UK–Mauritius Agreement would see the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago formally transferred to Mauritius, while allowing the UK and US to maintain operational control of Diego Garcia, the region’s strategically critical military base, under a new lease arrangement. The cost of the lease, funded by the UK, is expected to exceed £30 billion over the coming decades.
Critics of the deal argue that Mauritius’ obligations under the African Union’s Pelindaba Treaty, which prohibits nuclear weapons on its territory, could complicate the operational status of Diego Garcia and potentially impact Western defence capabilities in the Indo-Pacific.
The Chagos Islands, located in the Indian Ocean, have been under British control since 1814. The indigenous Chagossian population was forcibly removed by the UK Labour government in the late 1960s and early 1970s to make way for the military installation, sparking decades of legal and political battles.
Despite a long-standing dispute over sovereignty, successive British governments have maintained that the UK had a legal right to administer the territory. The decision to enter into the new treaty with Mauritius marks a significant policy shift and has prompted alarm among some defence and constitutional experts.
Legal delay raises ratification fears
The Judicial Review was filed earlier this year and was fast-tracked by Mr Justice Johnson, who directed that a judge should consider the application for permission “as close to July 11th as possible.” However, with the courts now in summer recess, no judge has reviewed the case, raising concerns that the Government may proceed with ratification of the treaty while the legal challenge remains unresolved.
“We’re urging the court to hear this case as soon as possible once they come back from summer recess,” said Bullivant. “There is a real risk the Government will ratify the deal before the claimants have even had their day in court.”
A date for the permission decision has yet to be confirmed.
The Foreign Office has defended the UK–Mauritius Agreement as a necessary step to resolve long-standing legal and diplomatic disputes. Officials say the deal preserves critical defence arrangements while reducing international pressure on the UK over its administration of the islands.
However, legal experts say the case could test the limits of executive power in treaty-making and the right of diaspora communities to be consulted on decisions affecting their historic homelands.
