Ce qu’il faut retenir
Mauritius has dismissed the creation of a self-styled Chagossian “government in exile” in London, stressing that the treaty signed in May 2025 with the United Kingdom for the retrocession of the archipelago remains legitimate. Port-Louis insists that most Chagossians back the agreement, which is expected to clear the House of Lords and take effect in February 2026.
Diplomatic Stakes of the Chagos Retrocession
For Mauritius, regaining the Chagos archipelago is the unfinished chapter of decolonisation. The 2019 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and subsequent UN votes bolstered its claim, but transforming legal language into administrative control still requires British parliamentary consent. The London committee’s report questioning Chagossian consultation reopens the debate at a politically sensitive juncture.
Beyond symbolism, the islands sit astride major shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean, a theatre where France, India, the United States and China watch each diplomatic ripple. While the UK retains Diego Garcia as a strategic base under a separate defence arrangement with Washington, Port-Louis argues that full sovereignty will not undermine existing security commitments.
Voices from Port-Louis and London
Attorney-General Gavin Glover thanked the House of Lords for its diligence yet warned that an online survey referenced in its report magnifies only dissenting voices. He maintains that “the Chagossian community is an indivisible component of the Mauritian nation” and that the treaty offers the most practical route to restitution and development.
In London, organisers of the exile cabinet claim a founding mandate from 1,233 Chagossians. Their declared mission is to block the treaty, portraying it as an arrangement struck “over our heads”. British peers sympathetic to their stance argue that Mauritius underestimates cultural memories of displacement dating back to the 1960s evacuations.
Timeline to February 2026
The House of Lords is scheduled to examine enabling legislation early next year. If the bill passes, instruments of transfer would be exchanged shortly before the February 2026 deadline. Mauritius has already drafted ordinances on environmental stewardship, fisheries and local administration to come into force on day one of sovereignty.
The exile cabinet vows to lobby Westminster and international forums until the last minute. Yet diplomats in Port-Louis believe the timeline remains realistic, noting that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office continues technical talks on maritime boundaries and heritage preservation without interruption.
Key Stakeholders and Power Dynamics
Port-Louis has set up a Chagossian-led trust fund to channel diaspora input into housing, education and heritage projects. By seating Chagossians at the board, the government hopes to undercut accusations of paternalism and to demonstrate broad-based ownership of the islands’ future.
In Westminster, the cross-party International Relations and Defence Committee plays an outsized role. Its recent report carries moral weight but is not legally binding. The executive branch, mindful of Diego Garcia’s strategic importance, has signalled that the treaty’s security clauses satisfy defence planners.
Possible Scenarios for the Indian Ocean
If the treaty proceeds, Mauritius will assume civil jurisdiction while leasing Diego Garcia to the Anglo-American base under a renewable agreement, preserving a linchpin of regional stability. Successful retrocession could also embolden other African countries pressing historic claims, subtly recalibrating maritime governance across the continent’s eastern seaboard.
Should Westminster stall, Port-Louis may revive its campaign at the UN General Assembly and explore advisory proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Either path keeps the issue within legal frameworks, a strategy that so far has garnered Mauritius wide diplomatic credit.
Finally, a negotiated middle way cannot be ruled out: London could seek incremental measures of Chagossian self-government under Mauritian sovereignty, satisfying identity concerns without derailing the calendar. For now, Port-Louis reiterates that the treaty already accommodates cultural rights and that additional layers of administration risk prolonging an epochal handover.
