Chagossians Demand Halt to Diego Garcia Bill as Verified Poll Confirms Overwhelming Support for Staying British

The Chagossian community has issued one of its strongest and most unified interventions in recent years, with more than 650 Chagossians signing a formal statement urging the Government and Parliament to stop the Diego Garcia Bill and to recognise their right to self-determination.

A separate development has added further weight to the Chagossian community’s position. A major poll conducted, which received 3,389 responses from Chagossians worldwide, has been formally endorsed by Andrew Hawkins, founder of Whitestone Insight and one of the United Kingdom’s most respected polling analysts. Although he did not run the survey himself, Mr Hawkins confirmed that he was satisfied with the methodology and described the level of participation as exceptional, noting that it represents the largest and most comprehensive consultation of Chagossian opinion ever undertaken. The results show overwhelming support for continued British sovereignty, with more than 99 per cent of respondents saying they wish the Chagos Islands to remain British. The sample represents an estimated 34 per cent of the global Chagossian population, and Mr Hawkins said that the combination of scale, diaspora coverage and consistency of responses provides an unusually authoritative indication of community sentiment. The poll has been published ahead of the forthcoming committee stage of the Diego Garcia Bill in the House of Lords and is expected to play an important role in public and parliamentary understanding of Chagossian opinion.

Alongside the statement, Misley Mandarin, who has long spoken on behalf of the community, announced the establishment of a Chagossian Government-in-Exile. He said that the step has been taken because Chagossians have been excluded from decisions affecting their homeland for six decades and cannot rely on others to speak for them. Mandarin insisted that the Government-in-Exile is intended to ensure that the community’s collective voice is not overlooked during a critical moment in the islands’ political future.

The Chagossian statement argues that the UK’s planned agreement with Mauritius risks repeating the injustice of 1965, when the islands were separated from Mauritius without consulting the people who lived there. It cites the 2019 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which states that the people of a non-self-governing territory must be given the opportunity to express a genuine and freely given view before any separation or transfer of their territory takes place.

The statement also draws attention to the precedent set during the decolonisation of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. When the Ellice Islanders expressed concern that they would be politically overwhelmed in an independent state dominated by the larger Gilbert Islands, the UK held a referendum in 1974. The Ellice Islanders voted overwhelmingly to separate. The statement argues that Chagossians should now be granted the same opportunity to determine their own future.

There is further concern within the community about the scale of the financial arrangements reportedly under discussion between the UK and Mauritius. Chagossian representatives point out that the sums said to be involved are significantly greater than the amounts required to enable resettlement on their home islands, something many families still hope to see in their lifetimes. They argue that it would be a profound mistake to compensate a government that took part in the original detachment of the islands while failing to restore the rights of the people who actually inhabited them.

With the proposed UK–Mauritius treaty still awaiting ratification, the community insists that Parliament has the opportunity to prevent what they see as a second denial of their rights. The statement calls on the Government to withdraw the Diego Garcia Bill and begin preparations for a formal self-determination referendum among Chagossians in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles. It also urges members of both Houses to refuse to pass the Bill if the Government does not change course.