Government made ‘unlawful decisions’ over Chagos Islands, High Court told

Three people should be allowed to bring a High Court legal challenge against the Foreign Office over alleged “unlawful decisions or omissions” in relation to the Chagos Islands, the High Court has been told.

Bertrice Pompe, Misley Mandarin and Michel Mandarin are seeking to challenge the Government over alleged failings, including not consulting Chagossians about a “right to abode” on the archipelago.

In May, the UK agreed to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, in a deal which will involve leasing back a crucial military base on Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands, for 99 years.

The deal was signed after a last-minute High Court challenge by Ms Pompe, which had delayed the signing by several hours, was dismissed.

The agreement has not yet been ratified as it requires approval by Parliament.

At a hearing on Tuesday, lawyers for the three Chagossians asked a judge for the green light to proceed with a legal challenge against the Government for failures to “adequately and lawfully consult with the Chagossian people” about their interests, including the right to live on the archipelago.

The Government is opposing the bid, with its lawyers claiming that the challenge is a “collateral attack on an international agreement”.

In written submissions, Philip Rule KC, for the Chagossians, said that the Foreign Office had made “unlawful decisions or omissions”, including failing to “adequately and lawfully” consult Chagossians about “rights of abode, resettlement, or territorial interests”.

The department also allegedly failed to “acknowledge, accept and treat the existence of the Chagossian people… as an ethnic race of peoples”, and to “permit the Chagossian people a right to self-determination”.

Mr Rule said that there was an “expectation of consultation” on matters including resettlement on the islands, stating in court that there was a “reckless disregard for the Chagossian interests”, and that the claim should be allowed to proceed.

The barrister continued in written submissions that the claimants are seeking the quashing of “decisions and actions taken unlawfully by the defendant in relation to matters affecting the Chagossian people and their interests”.

Kieron Beal KC, for the Foreign Office, told the court in written submissions that the Chagos Islands, a British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), “is not, and has never been, part of the UK”.

He continued that from 1971, people living on the largest island, Diego Garcia, were removed to the outer islands and then either left or were “evacuated” to the Seychelles or Mauritius.

In 1971, it became unlawful for a person to enter or remain in the BIOT without a permit.

Mr Beal said that the Government has “expressed its sincere regret about the manner in which Chagossians were removed” and “from time to time” has considered whether to support or allow resettlement, but decided in 2016 it “would not support or permit any programme of resettlement”.

The barrister also said that “no Chagossian has ever had a right of abode in the BIOT”, and said in court that the question of whether to give Chagossians a right to abode or right to resettlement was “necessarily now a matter for Mauritius”.

He said the measures sought by the claimants “would amount to a collateral attack on an international agreement” which would compel the Government to “exercise prerogative powers of treaty-making and international relations in a particular way, contrary to all authority and principle”.

Mrs Justice Stacey will hand down her ruling at a later date.

After the hearing, Stuart Luke, director of law firm Luke and Bridger, which represents Ms Pompe, said she “will continue to fight for her and her community’s rights”.

Legislation to formally hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius was supported by MPs earlier this month, with the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill set to be scrutinised in the House of Lords at a later date.