The few dozens of Ilois who have been flown on a British Passport to Gatwick Airport during the past months are now living a life of misery in Bed & Breakfast accommodations and in abject poverty. They now even have to go to court to decide on basic rights such as Housing Benefits and other social security support.

The local Council in West Sussex argues that if these people are British citizens, then it should be the responsibility of central government to house and provide for them. As one of the responsible of the Borough?s social services department puts it: ?If these people were asylum seekers they would qualify for state support immediately, but because they are British citizens they are caught in this invidious situation where they are not entitled to anything.?

There is no shortage of jobs in the United Kingdom (UK). Immigrants come in hundreds to find a living in the different towns and cities in England. It is also known that the UK is the most popular destination for people seeking political asylum. ?The first group who came have all found work now and have been absorbed into the community?, says the Council spokesman. Absorbed into the Crawley community! Is that what it is all reduced to?

From their physical resistance at home against boarding the Nordvaer in 1971, through numerous PRU baton charges at hunger strikes and picketing at the Jardin de la Compagnie in the 70?s in Port-Louis, and other countless negotiations, petitions and lobbying, it looks as though the struggle of the Ilois community is now being resumed to a mere claim for Social Security benefits against the Crawley Borough Council in West Sussex. And a claim for jobs and to be treated as true British citizens.

Jugdments and decisions

The struggle of the Ilois has always been well supported by public opinion at home (of which I am proud to have belonged) as much as at international level. The legitimate pledge of the natives to go back and live in their respective islands and the genuine claim for national sovereignty by the mauritian authority are not incompatible, but are rather complementary. To claim the contrary is to play the game of the UK and United States administrations.

In March 1999, the High Court heard an application for Judicial Review from Louis Bancoult and granted him locus standi for action deciding the legality of his displacement from Peros Banhos. He was represented by Sydney Kentridge QC.

In July 2000, the High Court Judge found in favour of Mr Bancoult and wrote: ?the removal and continued exclusion is unlawful?. He also recommended that the applicant should be allowed to return on Peros Banhos and the Solomon. In August 2000, the Foreign Office published a report stating very clearly that the islands are habitable provided some investment is made towards basic social and domestic infrastructure.

Again in November, Laws LJ and Gibbs J upheld the previous ruling and overturned the 1971 Immigration Ordinance banning the Ilois from going back home.

On an action for ?compensation for compulsory relocation?, Ouseley J overturned the previous decisions and judged ?not unlawful? the Ilois displacement.They were represented by Robin Allen QC.

Private legal claims on issues of human rights are very important as they pave the way towards redress on a tort committed to human beings. But in a fight against such muscles as the states of the UK and the US, if there is a chance of winning any thing at all, a public-private concerted action would seem to stand a better chance. Any claim for compensation needs to be complemented by a State claim for sovereignty.

Dealing with the demands for jobs and social security etc, the British authorities seem to be hitting two birds with a stone: compensation for tort and demand for sovereignty could sleep quietly in the authorities drawers.

Vijay I. Ram

LL.B(Hons) GP.LL

London