The Guardian’s recent article on the Chagos Islands tells us a great deal, not just about the issue itself, but about the newspaper’s editorial priorities.
Last week, Guardian readers were presented with a sympathetic account of Louis Olivier Bancoult and the Chagos Refugees Group urging Parliament to complete the transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius. Their views were reported at length, their arguments treated seriously, and their concerns given prominence. Yet what is striking is not what the article contains, but what it omits.
There was no mention of the polling evidence showing that the majority of Chagossians wish to remain British, nor of the growing movement within the Chagossian community opposing the handover.
For the past eighteen months, one of the most significant developments in the Chagos debate has been the growing resistance from many Chagossians who believe they have been excluded from decisions about their own future. Campaigners, community representatives, diaspora groups and community leaders have repeatedly raised concerns about consultation, consent and self-determination.
Time and again, these voices have struggled to gain meaningful coverage in major media outlets. We know this first hand. Over the past year, the Great British PAC has made repeated efforts to engage certain journalists, particularly at the Guardian, provide evidence, offer interviews and highlight developments that challenge the prevailing narrative. The response has largely been silence.
Yet when a small delegation arrives in Britain supporting the handover, the Guardian is quick to publish a lengthy and sympathetic article. That disparity raises entirely legitimate questions. Why are some Chagossian voices amplified while the majority of Chagossians who wish to remain British are ignored? Why are readers presented with one side of a deeply contested debate while other perspectives are treated as though they barely exist?
This is not an argument against Louis Olivier Bancoult or members of his delegation being heard. They have every right to express their views and make their case. The problem is that journalism is supposed to inform readers of the full picture, not merely reinforce a preferred narrative. A newspaper committed to fairness would acknowledge that there is vigorous disagreement within the Chagossian community itself about sovereignty, representation and the future of the islands.
Remarkably, the Guardian article also makes no mention of the Chagossian Government in Exile, established following a verified ballot of Chagossians in December 2025. More than 90 per cent of participants voted in favour of its creation, and Interim First Minister Misley Mandarin was elected with overwhelming support. Whatever one’s view of that initiative, it represents a major political development within the Chagossian community and demonstrates beyond doubt that there is no consensus behind the current arrangements.
Most importantly, the Guardian fails to engage seriously with the principle that lies at the heart of the entire dispute: self-determination.
For years, politicians, activists and newspapers such as the Guardian have championed self-determination as a fundamental democratic right. They have argued that communities should be free to decide their own future, free from decisions imposed by distant governments. Yet when it comes to Chagos, many seem willing to abandon that principle altogether.
How can it be considered progressive for the United Kingdom and Mauritius to negotiate the future of the islands while the majority of Chagossians feel excluded from the process? How can politicians speak endlessly about decolonisation while making decisions over the heads of the very people whose lives will be most affected? How can commentators celebrate international law while appearing indifferent to whether the people concerned have actually consented to the outcome?
The uncomfortable reality is that many of those who claim to be defending the rights of Chagossians appear willing to ignore Chagossian voices when those voices do not support the desired conclusion. That contradiction has become increasingly difficult to ignore.
The forced removal of Chagossians from their homeland by a former Labour government remains one of the great injustices of modern British history. Nobody should minimise that suffering. But acknowledging one injustice does not justify creating another. Correcting a historical wrong cannot mean denying people a meaningful say over their future. If governments are genuinely interested in justice, then the wishes of the Chagossian people should not be treated as an inconvenience.
What makes the Guardian’s approach particularly disappointing is its apparent selectivity when it comes to democratic rights. If another indigenous or displaced community complained that powerful governments were negotiating their future without proper consultation, the newspaper would rightly demand scrutiny, accountability and transparency. Yet on Chagos, there appears to be little curiosity about whether the process itself is democratic, legitimate or fair.
When competing evidence is ignored, inconvenient voices are excluded and only one side of a disputed issue is repeatedly amplified, journalism begins to look less like reporting and more like advocacy.
Readers deserve to know that polling has consistently shown strong support among Chagossians for remaining British. They deserve to know that serious concerns have been raised about consultation and consent. They deserve to know that there is a live and ongoing debate about whether sovereignty should be transferred without first establishing what the Chagossian people themselves want.
Above all, readers deserve to know that the Chagos issue is not simply a dispute between Britain and Mauritius. It is about a people. It is about whether a community that has already suffered displacement and marginalisation will once again find its future determined by others.
That is why self-determination matters so profoundly. It is not a slogan. It is not a political convenience. It is not a principle that applies only when it produces fashionable outcomes. It is the foundation of democratic legitimacy. Either people have the right to determine their own political future, or they do not.
The Chagos debate is not ultimately about Britain. It is not ultimately about Mauritius. It is about whether the Chagossian people themselves have the right to decide their future. Those who claim to champion human rights should have no difficulty answering that question.
The Guardian frequently lectures others about democracy, justice and human rights. On Chagos, it would do well to apply those same standards to itself. Until it starts reporting the full story, rather than only the parts that fit a preferred worldview, it risks becoming not an observer of this debate, but a participant in it.
The real scandal is not that one group of Chagossians has been given a platform. It is that so many others have spent years trying to tell their story and have been met with indifference.
For a newspaper that prides itself on speaking truth to power, that silence speaks volumes.
Claire Bullivant, CEO of the Great British PAC
