Few individuals have played a larger role in the modern history of the Chagos Islands than Olivier Bancoult.
For more than three decades, Bancoult has been one of the most recognisable faces of the Chagossian cause. He led legal battles against the British Government, campaigned for the rights of exiled islanders and became, in the eyes of much of the world, the public voice of a people removed from their homeland.
Whether one agreed with him or not, his influence was undeniable. That is precisely why the questions surrounding his current position matter.
This week, Bancoult is back in London.
He is meeting politicians, speaking to Parliamentarians and lobbying on the future of the Chagos Islands at the very moment a new House of Lords Bill is set to be introduced that would place Chagossian self-determination at the centre of any future sovereignty decision.
But there is an uncomfortable problem.
The position Bancoult promotes today appears dramatically different from the position he once articulated himself.
On 23 January 2008, appearing before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Bancoult was asked a straightforward question by MP Paul Keetch. If Chagossians were consulted, would they rather become Mauritian or remain part of a British Overseas Territory?
His answer was unequivocal.
“Frankly, most of us want to stay British.”
Not some of us.
Not a sizeable minority.
Most of us.
Those words matter.
They matter because they came from the man who now campaigns for Mauritian sovereignty. They matter because they directly contradict the narrative increasingly promoted by campaigners, lawyers and diplomats who speak as though the future of Chagos has already been decided.
Most importantly, they matter because they raise a question that has never been properly answered.
What changed?
Today, Bancoult is one of the most prominent advocates for transferring sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. He frequently invokes international court rulings, decolonisation arguments and diplomatic developments as evidence that the matter has effectively been settled.
But settled by whom?
Certainly not by the Chagossian people.
No referendum has ever been held. No democratic mandate exists. No vote of Chagossians has ever endorsed the transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius. Not one.
That fact has become even more politically significant following polling seen by this newspaper and due to be released later this week.
The YouGov survey, commissioned by the Great British PAC, reveals overwhelming public support for one principle above all others: self-determination.
More than 70 per cent of Britons believe Chagossians should have a vote on their future. Only six per cent disagree.
In modern Britain it is difficult to find an issue on which Labour voters, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Reform supporters agree.
On this issue they do.
Across every major political party, across every age group and across every major demographic, the public has reached the same conclusion.
The future of the Chagos Islands should be decided by the Chagossian people.
Not by Britain. Not by Mauritius. By Chagossians.
That should not be a controversial proposition.
After all, the Chagossian struggle was always presented as a fight for justice, dignity and the rights of an indigenous people. Yet somehow, as the debate shifted from resettlement to sovereignty, the wishes of that people appear to have become secondary.
Instead, the conversation has become dominated by governments, diplomats, lawyers and campaigners arguing over legal theories, geopolitical interests and international prestige. The people whose future is being negotiated have increasingly been pushed to the margins.
Bancoult frequently points to the International Court of Justice’s 2019 opinion as justification for Mauritian sovereignty. Yet the ICJ did not ask Chagossians what they wanted. It did not conduct a referendum. It did not determine the political wishes of the Chagossian people.
Nor could it.
The ICJ issued an advisory opinion. Even Professor Philippe Sands, one of Mauritius’s most prominent legal advocates, has acknowledged that advisory opinions are not binding on states.
In other words, whatever view one takes on sovereignty, the ICJ did not settle the question of self-determination.
Only Chagossians can do that.
Which brings us back to the question Olivier Bancoult has never adequately answered.
What happened between telling Parliament in 2008 that “most of us want to stay British” and lobbying politicians in 2026 to support Mauritian sovereignty?
Did he somehow lose faith in Britain? Did he conclude that Mauritius offered a realistic route forward? Did political realities alter his view?
Perhaps. Those are all arguments he is entitled to make.
But if that is the case, he should make them openly.
Because when a public figure who has spent decades claiming to speak for a people fundamentally changes position on the future of their homeland, transparency is not optional.
It is essential.
This week’s House of Lords Bill rests on a simple proposition: if the future of Chagos is to be decided, Chagossians should decide it.
Remarkably, that proposition now commands overwhelming support across Britain.
The British public understands what too many politicians, diplomats and activists appear determined to forget. The Chagos Islands are not an abstract legal dispute. They are the homeland of a people.
Yet as governments negotiate, lawyers litigate, campaigners lobby and billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money are discussed behind closed doors, one group continues to be treated as an afterthought.
The Chagossians themselves.
That is the real scandal.
Not that people disagree about sovereignty.
Not that Britain and Mauritius hold different views.
But that so many powerful voices seem determined to settle the future of Chagos without first establishing what the Chagossian people actually want.
Which brings us back to Olivier Bancoult.
When he told Parliament in 2008 that “most of us want to stay British”, was he right then? Or is he right now?
The two positions cannot both be true.
The Chagossian people deserve an answer. The British public deserves an answer.
And as Mr Bancoult walks the corridors of Westminster once again seeking to influence Parliamentarians, he owes both an explanation.
Because before Britain signs away sovereignty, before taxpayers are asked to fund a multi-billion-pound settlement, and before we had over ownership of an important military base only to rent it back, one question remains unanswered.
What do the Chagossian people themselves want?
The people who were never consulted when they were removed from their homeland should not be ignored when decisions are made about its future.
To transfer Chagos from one sovereignty to another without first obtaining the consent of the Chagossian people would not be self-determination.
It would be colonialism by another name.
Claire Bullivant
