The Government’s own survey has delivered a devastating verdict on its decision to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
Far from legitimising the deal, the findings expose it as morally indefensible, politically reckless, and rooted in the same colonial disregard that saw a Labour government expel the Chagossian people from their homeland in the 1960s.
More than 3,000 Chagossians responded to what ministers belatedly described as a consultation, conducted by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee only after the Government admitted that no consultation with Chagossians had taken place during negotiations. The Committee itself acknowledges that this exercise came far too late and could not substitute for meaningful engagement. The scale, consistency and clarity of the responses leave no room for doubt. This deal does not have the consent of the people it affects, and never did.
That fact alone should have stopped it.
Ignored, again
Between 1967 and 1973 the entire population of the Chagos Archipelago was forcibly removed to make way for a United States and United Kingdom military base on Diego Garcia. Families were uprooted, dumped into poverty in Mauritius and the Seychelles, and left to live out their lives in exile. Many died without ever seeing their homeland again.
Half a century later, the pattern has repeated. Labour negotiated the transfer of sovereignty behind closed doors, excluded Chagossians entirely, and only invited parliamentary scrutiny once the agreement had already been signed. The Committee explicitly recognises that successive governments have failed, over decades, to engage properly with the Chagossian people. This latest process, it makes clear, is no exception.
This was not an administrative failure. It was a conscious political decision to proceed without consent.
The central finding, Chagossians do not want this
The most striking conclusion of the survey is the depth and breadth of opposition to Mauritian sovereignty. Across the global Chagossian diaspora, respondents expressed overwhelming mistrust of the Mauritian state and deep concern that their interests would be sidelined or ignored altogether under Mauritian control.
The Committee records widespread lack of confidence in Mauritius to manage financial support fairly, to deliver meaningful resettlement, or to protect Chagossian culture, land and rights. Respondents repeatedly raised fears of discrimination, corruption and marginalisation. Diego Garcia, the cultural and emotional heart of the Chagossian community and the only island with serious infrastructure, is explicitly excluded from resettlement under the agreement. The survey makes clear that this exclusion is experienced not as a technical caveat but as a profound cultural and personal loss.
If consent matters, this agreement has none.
A racism too polite to name
The survey exposes a deeply uncomfortable truth. Chagossians are being treated differently from other small island populations whose wishes Britain claims to respect.
Respondents repeatedly compared their treatment with that of other British Overseas Territories, where self determination is protected, referendums are held, and local consent is treated as decisive. By contrast, Chagossians are told that international law makes their views inconvenient, their identity legally irrelevant, and their future negotiable by others. The Committee records these grievances plainly, even if ministers would rather look away.
This is not neutrality. It is a hierarchy of whose voices count.
That the Chagossian people are a predominantly Black, Creole community displaced by colonial force is not incidental. The survey documents allegations of racism, marginalisation and neglect under Mauritian rule, concerns that respondents say are being dismissed by the Labour Government in London in the name of diplomatic convenience.
A resettlement promise with no right to return
Supporters of the deal point to resettlement as evidence of progress. The survey shows why Chagossians regard this as empty.
The agreement guarantees no right of return. It merely permits Mauritius, at its discretion, to establish a resettlement programme on islands other than Diego Garcia. There is no obligation, no timetable, and no secured funding for housing, healthcare, education or employment. The Committee records deep scepticism that any such programme would be delivered at all.
Respondents understand exactly what this means. Promises without enforceability are not rights. Many stated they would refuse to engage with any resettlement scheme run by Mauritius. Others said they would only consider return if Chagossians themselves controlled planning, governance and jobs.
None of this is reflected in Labour’s agreement.
The UN question Labour wants to close, not answer
Ministers claim the deal resolves Britain’s international difficulties. The survey shows the opposite. It entrenches grievance by sidelining the very people whose displacement prompted international scrutiny in the first place.
Many respondents called for Chagossian agency, representation, and in some cases a direct say over sovereignty. The majority state that, if offered a choice, they would prefer the islands to remain a British Overseas Territory rather than be transferred to Mauritius. That preference may be inconvenient for ministers, but it is politically and morally decisive.
You cannot claim to decolonise territory while silencing the colonised.
A deal that should not survive scrutiny
The Committee stops short of issuing formal recommendations. It does not need to. Its conclusions are clear. The injustices revealed by the survey fall squarely within the responsibility of the Labour Government.
Labour now faces a stark choice. It can pause, listen, and rebuild a process centred on Chagossian consent, or it can force through a settlement that its own evidence shows is rejected by the people most affected.
History will record which path it chose.
And the Chagossians, once again, will bear the consequences.
All hope is not lost
Despite the Government’s determination to force the treaty through, the handover of the Chagos Islands is not yet complete. The agreement has not been ratified and Parliament still has a decisive role to play.
On 5 January the legislation returns to the House of Lords, followed by a third reading. Ministers are understood to be pushing for everything to be finalised by 1 February 2026. Unless Parliament intervenes, that is the date on which British sovereignty will be extinguished and the islands handed to Mauritius.
But the deal has already begun to fracture. Implementation was delayed last month after the Government faced the prospect of defeat in the Lords. Ministers were forced to pause legislation after an amendment was tabled requiring consultation with Chagossians before proceeding. That pause exposed how fragile the agreement becomes once subjected to scrutiny.
Chagossians have taken an unprecedented step. Following an independently organised process facilitated by the Great British PAC, families forcibly evicted from the islands between 1967 and 1973 have declared the formation of a Chagossian government in exile, in a direct attempt to prevent their homeland being handed over without consent.
The community has elected a first minister and declared its intention to remain British citizens and loyal subjects of the King. Their aim is explicit, to persuade the House of Lords to block the Prime Minister’s plans and to assert the same right to self determination enjoyed by other British Overseas Territories.
In his inaugural speech, the newly elected first minister, Misley Mandarin, set out the purpose of the declaration.
“Let the world know, we remain loyal subjects of His Majesty.
We remain committed partners to the United Kingdom and the United States. Tonight, the Chagossian voice becomes one voice. Tonight, our story begins anew.
We are still here. We are still Chagossian. And tonight, we rise. God Save the King.”
The Chagos Islands have been administered by Britain since 1814. In the 1960s the then prime minister, Harold Wilson, permitted the United States to construct a major military base on Diego Garcia. The original inhabitants were forcibly removed, many eventually settling in the United Kingdom.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed the treaty in May, surrendering British sovereignty and committing the UK to vast payments to Mauritius, despite the fact that Mauritius has never ruled the islands.
Mr Mandarin has made clear that the Chagossian position is not only about history but about the future. Chagossians want to return to their islands, remain British under British sovereignty, and protect Diego Garcia and the wider western security architecture that depends on it.
The government in exile will now draft a charter and establish a representative council. Efforts are under way to secure recognition from an international leader. If successful, it could fundamentally alter the political and diplomatic landscape surrounding the treaty.
The message to Parliament is now unmistakable. This is not a closed chapter. The deal is not final. And the people whose homeland is being traded away are no longer prepared to be silent.
Read the International Relations and Defence Committee’s findings here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ldselect/ldintrel/234/234.pdf
Main Image: The Chagos Islands are home to Diego Garcia, a UK / U.S. military base of significant strategic importance, particularly for operations in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa. Scene Camera Operator: PH2 Frazier. Copyright: Public Domain.
