The British Government has come under fire for sidelining the Chagossian people—again.
Despite repeated assurances from ministers, peers and MPs across the political spectrum that the Chagossian community would be properly consulted over the future of their homeland, a new sovereignty agreement with Mauritius has been negotiated without their involvement.
The deal, negotiated under the Labour Government in 2024, proposes transferring sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. It was hailed by ministers as a “historic” resolution of a colonial dispute, but Chagossians say it’s just the latest betrayal.
Cross-Party Calls to Involve the Chagossians
Politicians from all major parties have, over the years, insisted that the Chagossians must be consulted in any decisions about their future.
In 2015, during a major public consultation on Chagossian resettlement, then-Foreign Office officials stated that more than 1,200 Chagossians had responded, and future engagement was a priority. Yet no binding obligation was ever made.
Andrew Rosindell MP, a senior Conservative and long-time advocate for the Chagossians, did not mince his words when the 2024 deal was announced:
“This reckless move is a betrayal of the Chagossian people, who have been denied a voice… Any decision on the future of these islands must be made in full consultation with the Chagossian people.”
Peter Lamb, Labour MP for Crawley, where the UK’s largest Chagossian community lives, told BBC Newsnight in 2024:
“The decision had already been made… the choice should be down to the community themselves.”
Yet Lamb confirmed later at a Commons event that there is “certainly evidence” that claims of consultation made by Foreign Secretary David Lammy “do not appear to be true”.
Henry Smith MP (Conservative) has also raised concerns in Parliament, saying in 2022:
“The Chagossian people have been consistently sidelined… any decisions about their homeland must include their voices.”
Dr. Al Pinkerton MP (Liberal Democrat) criticised the exclusion of Chagossians from the negotiation process, stating on Times Radio:
“Throughout this process the voices of Chagossians have been entirely and unacceptably sidelined despite the UK celebrating the rights of other Overseas Territory citizens to self-determined their own future.”
Peers Have Repeated the Call
In the House of Lords, Baroness Whitaker, a long-standing advocate for Chagossian rights, declared during the November 2024 Lords debate:
“It is astonishing that negotiations about their future are being conducted without their direct representation. Have we learned nothing from our colonial past?”
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, from Labour’s front bench in the Lords, stressed on 2 April 2025:
“We cannot claim to right historical wrongs while ignoring the voices of those most affected.”
A Travesty of Justice
Despite these consistent, recorded calls, no Chagossian representatives were included in the official UK-Mauritius negotiations that led to the 2024 deal. This, campaigners say, turns decades of promises into political theatre.
The 2024 Joint UK-Mauritius Statement includes vague references to “the interests of former inhabitants,” but makes no provision for their direct involvement or consent. No referendum. No seat at the table. Just silence.
Legal action is now underway, with Chagossian representatives preparing to take their case to the UN Human Rights Committee, arguing that this deal, like previous policies, breaches their fundamental rights.
A Pattern of Exclusion
This isn’t a one-off oversight, it’s a pattern.
Chagossians were excluded from the 1960s-70s negotiations that saw them forcibly removed to make way for the US base on Diego Garcia. They were sidelined during the 2010 creation of the Marine Protected Area. Now, in 2024, history repeats itself.
And all this, despite nearly every major party having committed—on record—that such decisions must involve the very people most affected.
What began as a colonial injustice has become a constitutional scandal.
The fact that Chagossians have been denied consultation—again—despite clear, repeated, and public commitments from ministers, peers, and MPs is, as one peer put it, “a democratic travesty.”
