Chagossian campaigners return to the Royal Courts of Justice today in a major legal battle over Labour’s controversial plan to hand the islands to Mauritius, while British taxpayers face billions in payments to continue using a military base Britain already controls.
CHAGOSSIAN campaigners will return to the Royal Courts of Justice in London today (Thursday, November 5), as their fight against the proposed surrender of British sovereignty over their ancestral homeland reaches another crucial stage.
The hearing, scheduled for 10.30am in Court 69, will consider whether a judicial review challenging the British Government’s handling of the Chagos agreement can proceed.
The case is being supported by Great British PAC, which has contributed more than £50,000 towards legal proceedings and has been instrumental in helping Chagossians opposed to the deal take their fight to Westminster, Washington and the courts.
At the centre of the controversy is a question critics say Labour has never convincingly answered: why should Britain surrender sovereignty over one of the world’s most strategically important military territories, only to pay billions of pounds to continue using a base it already controls?
Britain’s military base, but Labour wants Mauritius to get sovereignty
The agreement signed by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer in May 2025 would transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, while allowing Britain to continue operating the strategically vital military base on Diego Garcia for an initial 99 years.
Diego Garcia is no ordinary military installation.
The base is crucial to British and American defence operations, supporting long-range military aircraft, naval operations, intelligence gathering and military deployments across the Indian Ocean and beyond.
Its strategic location makes it an important asset for both countries.
Yet under Labour’s proposed agreement, Britain would recognise Mauritian sovereignty over the islands and commit to substantial payments for continued use of the base.
The Government’s own financial assessment puts the present value of the proposed payments at approximately £3.4 billion over the initial 99-year arrangement.
Critics argue that the very premise is extraordinary: Britain would give up sovereignty over territory it already owns, then pay another country for the right to continue using its existing military facilities.
The Labour Government has maintained that the agreement would secure Diego Garcia’s future by resolving international legal disputes surrounding sovereignty.
But opponents question whether transferring sovereignty to another government can genuinely provide greater long-term security than retaining British control.
They argue that the strongest guarantee of the base’s future would be for Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands to remain British.
Concerns have also been raised about Mauritius’s close economic and diplomatic relationship with China, although the proposed treaty includes provisions intended to protect the military base from foreign interference.
The agreement has not been ratified, with the process paused amid a lack of American support. President Donald Trump has expressed opposition to the deal, while Prime Minister Andy Burnham has acknowledged the need for further discussions with Washington and Mauritius.
No payments to Mauritius have yet been made under the agreement.
But what about the people who actually belong to the islands?
Beyond the arguments over sovereignty and national security lies a human injustice stretching back more than half a century.
During the 1960s and 1970s, Chagossian families were forcibly removed from their Indian Ocean homeland as Britain and the United States developed the military base on Diego Garcia.
Families lost their homes, communities were destroyed and even their pets were rounded up and killed.
Generations have since grown up thousands of miles from the islands their parents and grandparents once called home.
Yet despite decades of campaigning, Chagossians opposed to the proposed sovereignty transfer argue that their wishes have still not been adequately considered.
The majority of Chagossians want their islands to remain British, support the continued operation of the military base and are fighting for the right to return to their homeland as British citizens.
A worldwide survey conducted by Friends of the British Overseas Territories found that 99.2 per cent of the 3,389 participating Chagossians supported self-determination and remaining British, according to the organisers.
With the worldwide Chagossian population estimated at approximately 10,000, the survey involved roughly one third of the global community.
Great British PAC also helped finance the establishment of a Chagossian Government in Exile, following a ballot in which 1,233 participants supported its formation and 108 opposed it.
Misley Mandarin subsequently became interim First Minister.
Those opposing the transfer fear that Mauritius could exploit the islands commercially rather than prioritise the rights and heritage of the displaced Chagossian people.
They have also raised concerns about the future of the archipelago’s extraordinary marine environment, which includes extensive coral reefs, important seabird populations, turtles and other marine wildlife.
Today’s legal challenge could prove crucial
The latest proceedings involve Chagossian claimants Louis Michel Mandarin and Louis Misley Mandarin, who are challenging aspects of the Government’s decision-making over the proposed agreement.
Their case includes allegations that the Chagossian people were not properly consulted before decisions were taken about their homeland.
The High Court initially refused permission for the judicial review to proceed in March 2026.
However, following an appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered a fresh hearing to reconsider that refusal.
Today’s hearing will therefore decide whether the claim can progress towards fuller judicial scrutiny. It will not itself determine sovereignty over the islands or deliver a final judgment on the treaty.
Nevertheless, permission to proceed would be an important development for the claimants.
Great British PAC has also supported separate legal proceedings involving Chagossians who have returned to their ancestral islands, including Misley Mandarin and his father, Michel, who was born there before being forcibly removed.
Their fight to remain on the islands has become another important part of the wider legal campaign.
Great British PAC puts its money behind the Chagossians
The political campaigning organisation has provided more than £50,000 towards Chagos-related legal proceedings, supported parliamentary amendments, engaged with politicians across party lines and helped bring the issue to international attention.
Its work has also extended to humanitarian assistance.
In September, 104 Chagossians from 31 families travelled from Mauritius to Manchester Airport, where some encountered serious immigration difficulties.
Great British PAC provided £10,000 towards urgent legal assistance through Imperium Chambers and helped families facing practical and medical problems.
The organisation has also supported polling and the establishment of the Chagossian Government in Exile.
Its campaign has brought together Conservatives, Reform supporters, people from Labour and Liberal Democrat backgrounds, Unionists and those without political affiliations.
Supporters argue that the issue transcends ordinary party politics, involving both the strategic interests of Britain and the rights of a community displaced from its homeland.
Labour’s Chagos deal remains in limbo
The proposed agreement remains unsigned into UK domestic law, with its implementing legislation having fallen during the previous parliamentary session.
The Government continues to maintain that the treaty provides a route to long-term security for Diego Garcia while addressing international legal obligations.
Mauritius, meanwhile, maintains its claim to sovereignty over the archipelago and has warned that the present situation cannot continue indefinitely.
But for opponents of the deal, the unresolved treaty represents an opportunity to reconsider a decision they believe would weaken British sovereignty and create unnecessary long-term security risks.
And for the Chagossians opposing the agreement, the question remains more fundamental still.
After more than half a century of displacement, should their ancestral homeland be transferred to another country without their meaningful consent?
As lawyers gather at the Royal Courts of Justice today, that question will once again be at the centre of a legal battle which could have consequences far beyond the Indian Ocean.
For the Chagossian families still fighting for recognition, the right to return and self-determination, the struggle is far from over.
