Since the promulgation of the Order in Council by the British government on the 10th June, forbidding all access to the islands of Chagos, there has been a flurry of activity over this issue. Strangely, the tone of the Mauritian Government, especially our prime minister, has been defiant, uncompromising and even bordering on undiplomatic – strange and out of character when it comes to our dealings with the British Government.

But what are they playing at? Do they really take us for a bunch of dimwits? They are telling us that to sue the British government at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), we need to withdraw from the Commonwealth because any grievance between two member countries has to be resolved within the organisation.

False: there is no such legally binding agreement on members of the Commonwealth! But, let us admit that there was such an agreement, then, what stops us from suing the British government anyway? It would be understandable if the ICJ in The Hague did not allow one Commonwealth member to sue another in its court – then, we would have had to withdraw, to be able to sue, but since this is not the case, then why do we need to leave the Commonwealth club? It makes no sense whatsoever! Let them kick us out if they dare!

But as I said above, all this is fiction – there is no such legally binding agreement within the Commonwealth and if we go on the Commonwealth Secretariat Website*, it tells us: “The Commonwealth’s structure is based largely on unwritten and traditional procedures and not on a formal charter or constitution. It is guided, however, by a series of agreements on its principles and aims. These are Declarations or Statements, which have been issued by Commonwealth Heads of Government at various summits. Together, they constitute a foundation of Commonwealth values and a history of concern in global affairs. The most significant of these are the Singapore Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, 1971 and the Harare Commonwealth Declaration, 1991, which clearly set out the Commonwealth’s commitment to democracy, the rule of law and good governance.”

Indeed, there is no formal charter or constitution but a series of agreements on its principles and aims and none of these agreements mentioned above contain the clause in question!

So, what is all this fuss about then? Does the Government have a hidden agenda instead? Is it anything to do with the Privy Council by any chance? If the Government were really sincere in fighting for the rights of the Chagossians and our sovereign rights, which according to our PM is priceless, they would take the case to the ICJ immediately, and fight within the Commonwealth to shame the British Government!

Challenge to legal experts

Let us remember that some of the fundamental principles of the Commonwealth ‘family’ which was agreed at the Singapore meeting of 1971 and reiterated twenty years later at the Harare meeting in 1991 are: “we believe …in the rule of International law; we believe in the liberty of the individual under the law; we oppose all forms of racial oppression, and we are committed to the principles of human dignity and equality, we recognise the importance … to satisfy the basic needs and aspirations of the vast majority of the peoples of the world”. And at the Harare meeting they even pledged to concentrate especially on: ‘fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief.’

We can certainly count on most members of the Commonwealth to help us in this endeavour, especially our neighbours, post-apartheid South Africa and India!

As for us, the citizens of Mauritius, it is our salvation that we remain a member of the Commonwealth, not only because it is a guarantee against tyranny but also because another one of the pledges of member countries at the Harare meeting was an undertaking to work on developing into just and honest governments! We are still waiting for the latter!

Finally, I defy not only the Government but also all the legal experts advising them on this issue to come forward and challenge the above arguments. This challenge is also addressed to the legal commentators advocating our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. Removing our right of appeal to the Privy Council and messing about with our Constitution is not something to be done on a whim or on pretence.

<I>Selva Appasawmy

[email protected]</I>