Keir Starmer’s government has quietly suspended key parts of its permit system for the Chagos Islands, in a move that has raised serious questions about transparency and accountability following a landmark court defeat.
Without any formal announcement, ministerial statement or press release, officials inserted a notice onto a government webpage confirming that, as of 31 March 2026, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) administration has “paused substantive consideration” of new permit applications to enter the territory.
The timing is striking. It came on the very same day that the Supreme Court of the British Indian Ocean Territory, presided over by Chief Justice James Lewis KC, handed down a historic judgment in favour of the Chagossian people.
At the heart of that ruling was the court’s decision to quash Section 9 of the 2004 Constitution Order, the provision which had, for over two decades, declared that no person had the right of abode in the territory. That clause formed the legal backbone of successive governments’ policy of excluding Chagossians from their homeland.
The court found the provision to be unlawful and irrational.
It also quashed removal notices issued against Chagossians currently on the islands, ruling that they had been imposed without fair process, without proper consideration, and without giving those affected a meaningful opportunity to respond.
In effect, the judgment dismantled the legal architecture that had been used to prevent resettlement.
Yet rather than publicly addressing the implications of such a profound ruling, the government appears to have opted for silence.
Instead, buried within its “Visiting BIOT” webpage, a notice appeared stating that, in light of “ongoing litigation”, the administration would pause decisions on new permit applications while it “considers its position”.
No explanation has been offered as to why such a significant operational change was not communicated openly.
The permit system in question has long been central to the government’s control over access to the islands. Under existing rules, individuals must obtain a permit to enter or remain in the territory. In practice, critics have argued that this system has been used as a blanket mechanism to prevent Chagossians from returning, despite their historic connection to the islands.
The court’s judgment directly challenged that approach, finding that the government had failed to exercise its discretion lawfully and had treated the permit system as though no approvals could be granted at all.
That finding appears to have left the administration in a difficult position.
Continuing to refuse permits under the old approach would risk further legal challenge. Yet granting them would mark a significant shift in policy. The decision to “pause” the system suggests a government struggling to reconcile its existing framework with the court’s ruling.
The implications are considerable.
For more than twenty years, British policy has rested on the premise that Chagossians had no legal right to live in their homeland. That position has now been fundamentally undermined. Any future decisions on permits must take into account heritage rights and any entitlement to a right of abode, a requirement that significantly raises the bar for refusing entry.
At the same time, the government is pursuing a controversial agreement to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a deal expected to cost British taxpayers tens of billions of pounds over its lifetime. The court itself referenced figures suggesting the total financial commitment could exceed £50 billion in cash terms.
Against that backdrop, the absence of transparency over such a consequential development is likely to attract further scrutiny.
For critics, the sequence of events is telling. A major legal defeat is handed down. The legal basis for exclusion is struck down. And within hours, the system used to enforce that exclusion is quietly put on hold, without public acknowledgement.
Whether described as caution or confusion, it is not a picture of a government in control of events.
What is clear is that the judgment has had immediate, real-world consequences. The legal landscape has shifted, and the mechanisms that once underpinned government policy can no longer operate as they did before.
The question now is whether ministers will confront that reality openly, or continue to manage it in the shadows, one webpage update at a time.
Claire Bullivant
