No5’s Philip Rule KC, leading James Tumbridge of Keystone Law and Susana Ferrín of No5 Chambers, act on behalf of four Chagossian Claimants in their judicial review claim issued in the Supreme Court of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). The claim is due to be considered at a rolled-up hearing on 13 March 2026 before the Chief Justice of the BIOT.
The four Chagossian Claimants include the elected First Minister of the Chagossian Government-in-Exile, Misley Mandarin. They are currently in the Chagos Archipelago on an island over 100 miles away from the military base at Diego Garcia. The Claimants challenge the BIOT Commissioner’s failure to decide to issue them with a permit to be present in the islands, and the removal orders issued by the BIOT Commissioner, within two days of their arrival to their homeland.
The challenge is made to the lawfulness of (a) the decisions not to issue any permit, and (b) decisions to issue the removal orders. Behind the flawed decisions is also an asserted absence of procedural fairness. The case raises points of international law regarding the self-determination of the forcibly displaced Chagossian people; and the criminality of repeating the past in removing them by compulsion. The Claimants seek declaratory relief and quashing orders so that fresh lawful decision-making should occur that is in accordance with the law.
The Chagossian peoples have been in exile since being forcibly removed from the Chagos Islands by the British authorities. In the past, this action, though unlawfully undertaken, had been justified on the grounds of national security due to the military base at Diego Garcia. However, the UK’s position has dramatically changed and it is no longer asserted that no persons could safely be present on the outer islands. Indeed a written agreement between the UK and Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago proposes to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago, except for the lease-back of a military base at Diego Garcia, with the agreement that resettlement on the outer islands is permissible.
This judicial review claim therefore challenges, in particular, the treatment and proposed removal action of the Chagossian people from their homeland – again – against the backdrop of a proven shameful history of forced removal and exile.
