There are a number of reasons why the Chagos deal – handing the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory – over to Mauritius, is a really, really bad idea:
- It would compromise the reputation of the UK in the world, causing foreign countries to believe that the UK is now internationally weak, and unable to stand up for its own interests, and the interests of its people overseas. In particular, it encourages Spain to believe that it can take Gibraltar, and Argentina to believe that it can take the Falkland Islands;
- It would reduce the effectiveness of the military base on Diego Garcia because it permits foreign powers, with Mauritian approval, to construct their own military bases, including for surveillance and other purposes, on other islands in the archipelago;
- It would reduce the effectiveness of the military base because it would render it unlawful to service military assets with nuclear capability (both UK and USA) from using it;
- It would be a flagrant breach of the UK’s treaty 8737 with the United States, by which the UK promised that the UK would retain sovereignty over the islands;[1]
- It is extraordinary unkind to the Chagossian people, who Mauritius has always treated badly, who were not consulted, and who are more or less universally opposed the deal;
- It would cost the UK taxpayer a huge amount of money – over £30 billion.
- It would lead to the destruction of the Marine Protection Area, which is the largest marine protection area in the world;
- It is a deal made with crooks (both the current Prime Minister of Mauritius, and the previous Prime Minister of Mauritius have been arrested for money laundering and fraud).[2] The overwhelming likelihood is that if the deal proceeds, a considerable portion of the money paid will be syphoned off by these crooks.
- The case for handing over the Chagos islands to Mauritius has always been nonsensical. The Chagos islands have never been part of Mauritius (although it is true that for convenience they were for a while administered from the UK’s Foreign Office there);
- As part of the process whereby Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s, a deal was made between the UK and Mauritius whereby Mauritius was paid £3 million (£8 billion or so in today’s money) to renounce any possible claim to the islands. The then Prime Minister of Mauritius repeatedly said that Mauritius was not interested in the Chagos Islands. It would set a very bad precedent for the UK to permit breach of treaties made in the past;
- The court of the United Nations – the ICJ – had no jurisdiction in 2019 to rule on any question of sovereignty as between the UK and Mauritius[3], and the ruling was merely advisory in any event.[4] The ruling was not based on any sound legal principle, but rather was motivated by political antagonism towards the UK;
- The deal was steered through by an Indian gentleman working for the Foreign Office, Vijay Rangarajan. The population of Mauritius is predominantly ethnically Indian. It is prejudicial to public trust for a deal of this magnitude to be in the hands of someone with the same ethnicity as the beneficiary.
- Mauritius’s counsel is Philippe Sands KC, a close personal friend of the UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer. That raises a reasonable apprehension of bias. It is material that when Mauritius’ Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam was caught carrying a suitcase of cash into a London bank in 2014[5], he said that he was in London to “discuss a legal matter with Mr Sands”.[6]
Is there any upside to the deal? Well, for politicians in Mauritius, obviously. And also, for Mr Sands, for whom the implementation of the deal would be a feather in his cap. Notwithstanding that Mr Sands swore the oath of allegiance when he took silk, he evidently takes considerable pleasure from the very opposite.[7]
[1] See https://phenell.wordpress.com/2026/01/24/giving-away-the-chagos-is-illegal/
[2] The previous Prime Minister is out on bail. Charges against the present Prime Minister were dropped due to the prosecution’s delay in lodging the case.
[3] This is because Mauritius was, and indeed is, a member of the British Commonwealth, and the ICJ has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes between members of the British Commonwealth.
[4] It is usually ignored; see the analysis Provisional, but Not (Always) Pointless: Compliance with ICJ Provisional Measures. There is these days precious little compliance with the court’s recent rulings:
| Case | Year of Order(s) | Substantive compliance | Procedural compliance |
| Allegations of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russia) | 2022 | No | – |
| Application of the CERD (Azerbaijan v. Armenia) | 2021 | Partial | – |
| Application of the CERD (Armenia v. Azerbaijan) | 2021-23 | No | – |
| Application of the Genocide Convention (Gambia v. Myanmar) | 2020 | No | Yes |
| Treaty of Amity (Iran v. United States) | 2018 | No | – |
See also https://phenell.wordpress.com/2024/10/09/hey-joe-more-on-the-chagos-islands/
[5] According to Le Mauricien, the bank greeted him with the words, “How are you Mr Banker?
[6] “Le Premier Ministre à Londres: Navin Ramgoolam, un citoyen comme un autre”. Le Mauricien. 13 April 2014.
[7] He has said it is a “fantastic thing… when you’ve taken your own country to court, won, and humiliated them completely”
phenell 