It has to be one of the most convoluted plots of all times. Not even John Grisham?s fertile imagination could have dreamed up the twists and turns that the Chagos Refugee Group (CRG) has had to put up with in its protracted legal battle against the British government. Thrice the law lords ruled unanimously in favour of the valiant CRG and thrice the British government thwarted them. The nadir, of course, was its recourse to the Queen?s Orders in Council in June 2004. For a week as from 30th June, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords will hear the British government?s final appeal against the High Court and Court of Appeal?s rulings. Whatever the outcome, this will mark the end of a truly remarkable saga.

It all began placidly enough. Ten years ago, the CRG, a group motley crew of displaced islanders and their offspring, decided to seek legal advice regarding their expulsion 30 years prior. The first hurdle they came up against was the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Immigration Ordinance of 1971. According to their solicitor, Robin Mardemootoo, this was ?the legal instrument prohibiting access to the islands?. Their decision to challenge the BIOT Ordinance was fraught with obstacles, not least the fact that their expulsion had taken place three decades before and that claims for judicial review have to be made no more than three months ?after the grounds to make the claim arose?.

Against all odds, the CRG pulled of its audacious gambit in November 2000. The High court quashed the infamous ordinance. In a memo submitted to the House of Commons? Select Committee on Foreign affairs in January 2008, Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn, an indefatigable supporter of the exiles, wrote: ?On 3rd November 2000, the High Court declared unlawful Clause 4 of the Immigration Ordinance, which exiled the Chagos islanders from their homeland. On the same day Robin Cook as Secretary of State caused the Commissioner to enact the BIOT Immigration Ordinance 2000. This restored the right of abode of the islanders to the archipelago, save in respect to Diego Garcia where a permit was still required to land.?

In other words, the British government decided not to appeal against the High court decision thus paving the way for the islanders? return to their beloved archipelago, right? Wrong. History?s tendency to victimize the Chagossian community reached an unprecedented high when, in September 2001, two Boeing 747s smashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, heralding a violent new dawn in global geopolitics. The Bush Administration declared its War on Terror and all human rights were promptly chucked out the window. The then bellicose US Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld, made sure resettlement talks were all but abandoned.

The plot didn?t bother to thicken. It turned straight into cement. June 2004 signaled a level of perfidy. The pressure exerted by the US government on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) bore something akin to what Nina Simone called Strange fruit when none other than Queen Elizabeth II surreptitiously issued two Orders in Council, effectively restoring the BIOT Immigration Ordinance 1971. The Blair government had run to mommy for help and mommy had obliged. Orders in Council are an arcane, undemocratic and virtually unassailable royal prerogative. More shocking still, they were passed on the day municipal elections were being held in England, meaning that not a single MP was around the House of Commons to denounce it. Coincidence? Perhaps not. The CRG was, for wont of a better word, floored.

But what was it to do in the face of such abject skullduggery? ?We revisited the laws, looked for new possibilities and lodged fresh judicial review proceedings challenging the Queen?s authority to remove a population from their homeland?, reminisces Robin Mardemootoo. And, lo and behold, in May 2006 the law lords reserved a cosy place for themselves in the annals of History by unanimously declaring the Orders in Council unlawful. They went further calling them ?repugnant? and ?irrational?. Once again, the tables were turned. The Man Fridays had foiled the British government?s Machiavellian machinations. They had earned their right to return the hard way.

Well, not quite yet. The British government appealed against the judgment. But Justice was once again served in May 2007 when the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court?s decision and denied it the right to seek ?leave to appeal? to the House of Lords Judicial Committee. Its application was denied. An application for special leave to appeal was however accepted in June 2007. This brings us to the present situation.

<I>?According to Robin Mardemootoo, ?the huge financial demands of such an undertaking are easily surmountable. There?s a lot of funding that they can tap into.
Hotel and fishing companies will gladly supply funds in exchange, of course, for certain concessions?.?</I>

The Judicial Committee can now do one of two things. It can rule that the High Court and the Court of Appeals do not have the authority to challenge the Orders in Council and, by the same token, nullify their rulings. But, as Robin Mardemootoo explains, to do so would entail going ?against three unanimous decisions made by their peers?. Even in the event of such a legerdemain, the CRG?s solicitor vows to keep fighting.

Or, it can uphold the High Court and Court of Appeal?s judgments, thus paving the way for a resettlement of Peros Banhos and Salomon. According to Robin Mardemootoo, the huge financial demands of such an undertaking are easily surmountable. ?There?s a lot of funding that they can tap into.? Hotel and fishing companies will gladly supply funds in exchange, of course, for certain concessions. The CRG can also apply for funding from the European Union, which has a specially kitty for underdeveloped territories.

The Judicial Committee?s ruling is expected later this year. ?We are confident because we are fighting for a good cause?, concludes Robin Mardemootoo. It?s doubtful whether the British government shares his optimism.

GOVERNMENT HISTORICAL MOVES

<B>Mauritian sovereignty: half-hearted efforts, cash and rats</B>

■ The Mauritian government claims sovereignty over the Chagos, a claim which must not be confused with those of the CRG. In fact, some, and in particular the Chagossian Social Committee led by Fernand Mandarin, believe that the CRG?s legal struggles have impacted negatively on the claims of Mauritius to sovereignty. Even if the government?s attempts to get the Chagos back have mostly been half-hearted, relations between Port-Louis and London reached a breaking-point in 2004 when then Prime minister Paul Bérenger famously said, ?I smell a rat!? Although the provenance of the rodent remains a mystery, it would?ve led to Mauritius leaving the Commonwealth if our cunning deciders hadn?t given the British government enough time to change the rules of the game, thus rendering obsolete the purpose of such a manoeuvre. In his reply to a Private notice question on Monday, PM Navin Ramgoolam said that he had recently spoken to his British counterpart, Gordon Brown, about the Chagos issue ?especially in view of the Appeal case entered by the UK government?. They also discussed ?the expiry in 2016 of the UK-US arrangements for the utilization of the Chagos archipelago?. The next step will be an agreement by officials of the two countries ?on a common date to start the process of consultations?. A memo will be sent to the British government to this effect. In his memo to the House of Commons, Jeremy Corbyn outlined the deal, which led to the excision of the archipelago. ?In September 1965 there was a Constitutional Conference at Lancaster House on the forthcoming independence of Mauritius. By October, the pre-independence Prime minister of Mauritius had agreed to the detachment of the islands for £3 million, and the evacuation of the Chagos Islanders to Mauritius.?

TERROR SUSPECTS

<B>A bone of contention named rendition</B>

The covert detention of terror suspects by the CIA has proved hugely controversial all over Europe and Diego Garcia?s role in the extraordinary rendition of prisoners has been the subject of much heated debate in both the Houses of Commons and Lords.

Two years ago, a Swiss senator, Dick Marty, submitted a probing report to the Council of Europe in which he asserted that Diego Garcia had, in fact, been used a prison. In an article entitled «The shame of Diego Garcia», British historian, Andy Worthington, presented a convincing body of evidence showing that the main island of the Chagos archipelago has been used to detain suspected terrorists. Having spoken to senior CIA officers during his research, he (Dick Marty) told the European Parliament, ?We have received concurring confirmations that United States agencies have used Diego Garcia, which is the international legal responsibility of the UK, in the processing of high value detainees.?

Worthington also reported that the UN?s Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Novak, had ?heard from ?reliable sources? that the US has ?held prisoners on ships in the Indian Ocean?.? More damningly still, «The Shame of Diego Garcia» told of how a retired four-star US general, Barry MaCaffrety, had ?twice let slip that Diego Garcia has, as the administration?s opponents have struggled to maintain, been used to hold terror subjects?. In May 2004, he blithely declared, ?We?re probably holding around 3 000 people, you know, Bagram air field, Diego Garcia, Guantanamo, 16 camps around Iraq.?

Marty?s findings were refuted by former Attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, who appeared in front of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in June last year. Interrogated by Baroness Stern on the accuracy of Swiss senator?s conclusions, Lord Goldsmith told the committee he had been ?assured? that Diego Garcia had not been used as a secret prison for high-level detainees.

Baroness Stern went on to grill the former Attorney general on the reliability of the US government?s assurances.

The issue once again came to the fore in the House of Lords at the beginning of this month when Lord Wallace of Saltaire quizzed Lord Bach on whether ?any British citizens have been held in US prison ships since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003?. The latter responded that the British government report was ?not aware? of any such cases.

Lord Bach went on to concede that ?there have been many stories around this issue for many years and many suggestions have been made.? He also revealed that the British Foreign secretary had written to US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, about ?whether detained were ever held on ships outside the territorial waters of Diego Garcia?.

Tellingly, the missive received no reply.