Accusation of bribing voters, overnight and complete ban on social media, lies, corruption…

Why were Sir Keir and David Lammy throwing billions of UK taxpayers’ money at the former Mauritius Prime Minister?

Plus, the absent legal case for doing a deal with the new Mauritius Prime Minister

Montage © Facts4EU.Org 2025

Sir Keir and David Lammy under attack over Chagos, sovereignty, and new concerns over billions of taxpayers’ money being wasted

Following our revelations about the serious problems surrounding the proposed Mauritius deal yesterday, we now look at the main issue behind the Government's rush to give away the UK's sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. We provide the legal evidence which makes the Government's justifications for its actions look so thin as to be non-existent.

In addition we look at the serious questions over the regime to which the Government plans to throw billions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

This is of obvious relevance to the public, given we know that Sir Keir and Foreign Secretary David Lammy had agreed to pay at least £9bn to the former Mauritius PM's administration, whilst at the same time giving away British sovereignty over a vital strategic presence in the Indian Ocean.

In the final part of this report today :

• The latest news on the money-laundering scandal rocking Mauritius and the impact on the UK Government's reputation
• Sir Keir Starmer's attempted legal justification for this hugely expensive giveaway
• The evidence there is no legal justification at all
• What the Mauritian PM said is in the deal, as opposed to what the UK Government says
• The comments in Parliament of Nigel Farage MP and others - and the Government's response

1. Latest on the arrest of the man with whom Sir Keir negotiated the Chagos surrender

Yesterday we revealed the shocking arrest for money-laundering of the man whom Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy met warmly in London last year, and with whom they agreed the initial Chagos surrender. We can now give readers more information on the former Prime Minister and Leader of the ‘Militant Socialist Movement’, Pravind Jugnauth.

Just 10 days before the Mauritius elections on 10 November last year, the Prime Minister, trailing in the polls, ordered the immediate shut-down of all social media channels until after the election. These included Facebook, X, Instagram and TikTok. The country’s internet providers had to comply.

Mr Jugnauth took this extreme authoritarian action – claiming it was “a matter of national security” - following the publication of embarrassing and in some cases incriminatory secret recordings of phone calls by politicians, journalists, and noted members of society. The total ban, which had the effect of shutting down the opposition parties’ main route to communicate with the Mauritius electorate of one million, was met with an enormous public protest, after which Mr Jugnauth had no option but to order the ban be lifted.

He lost the election on 10 November by a landslide, winning only two out of 62 seats. The other 60 seats went to the party of the new Prime Minister, with whom Sir Keir and David Lammy are now agreeing the final, revised surrender of the Chagos Archipelago. The British Government is negotiating with what is now effectively a one-party state.

It gets worse…

Even before any of the above took place, in the previous election Mr Jugnauth was accused of rigging the vote in his own constituency using bribery and other methods. In the end this case went to the Mauritius court of appeal which is located - where else - in the UK. It should be noted that the British judges ruled in favour of Mr Jugnauth.

2. Sir Keir Starmer's attempted legal justification for this hugely expensive giveaway

The only justifications given by Sir Keir and other Ministers surrounding this whole affair relate to a legal requirement to take the actions the Government seems intent on taking. Unfortunately a search of official statements does not reveal any detailed legal argument. The best that is on offer are simple statements made by Sir Keir and others under questioning by MPs. Some examples are below.

It has not been possible to find any substantive statement from the Government giving any evidence at all of any legal obligation by the United Kingdom to alter the status quo.

3. The facts showing Sir Keir has no legal case

The UN General Assembly has always backed a Mauritian bid to take ownership of Chagos, and numerous motions to this effect have been passed over the years. The latest one of importance was on 23 June 2017, when the General Assembly adopted resolution 71/292 requesting an Advisory Opinion at the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ), and unsurprisingly the opinion went against the UK.

Any binding resolution of the UN would need Security Council approval, where the UK and US both have a veto. When the UK signed up to the ICJ it was expressly agreed that cases about the UK and Commonwealth - which this one would be if it were brought – are excluded. (See blue box below.) The argument that the UK currently faces an enforceable judgement in the Court is simply wrong. An Advisory Opinion is just that and under the terms of the UK’s membership of the ICJ no case that would be binding may be brought before the court.

4. What the Mauritian PM said is in the deal, as opposed to what the UK Government says

The hidden details of the giveaway of sovereignty and £18bn of taxpayers' money

The UK Government still refuses to publish the details of the new Chagos Islands deal, despite the fact many of these details have been publicly given by the Mauritian government to its own National Assembly (parliament). In order to inform the public we are therefore publishing the video recording of the debate in the Mauritian National Assembly on 04 February. Below that are official excerpts of the Mauritian Prime Minister's answers to questions from the leader of the Opposition.

With the Prime Minister of Mauritius revealing more than the British Prime Minister, we also include the recent exchanges in the House of Commons, just under a fortnight ago, where this whole arrangement was questioned by Nigel Farage MP, leader of Reform UK.

The Mauritian Prime Minister on the new deal with Sir Keir and David Lammy

Excerpts from the official record (Hansard) of the Mauritius National Assembly

“We insisted that it be clear that we have complete sovereignty on the Chagos, including Diego Garcia. The British agreed to that and this has been changed.”

“The extension has to be agreed with both parties. It cannot be unilateral from the British. And I am glad to inform the Leader of the Opposition that the British have agreed to that also.”

“They had agreed to a package for 99 years, but it was not inflation-proof. The exchange rate, because it is in dollars, would be fixed once, and then, the last in 99 years. How can that be? …. What is the point of getting money and then having half of it by the end? This is what would have happened! We have made the calculation. So, that also, we did not agree to. And we also wanted to do front loading; some of the money had to be front loaded, and that also is being agreed to, I think.”

- Navinchandra Ramgoolam, Prime Minister, Mauritius

So in broad terms we know the plan is for a surrender of sovereignty together with a 99-year leaseback in respect of Diego Garcia, with lease payments of at least £9 billion, front-end loaded, and almost certainly with payments being index-linked, which would more than double the eventual sum paid by the British taxpayer. This means the total bill will be in the region of £20 billion - not far short of Rachel Reeves' infamous "£22bn black hole" in the Government's finances.

5. Questions in the UK Parliament, and the Government's responses

Here is what Reform UK’s leader, Nigel Farage MP, asked in Parliament after the events in the Mauritian National Assembly which we have shown above.

Note : Mr Farage meant to refer to the International Court of Justice rather than the International Criminal Court, about which he is correct to say there is no legal basis for a claim from Mauritius on the Chagos Islands.

The Government Minister replied as follows.

A final word from Sir John Redwood, whose original work we drew on

The UK Prime Minister should be on our side, putting the UK case.

UK taxpayers have no wish to make large payments to Mauritius for 99 years when there is no need. Our most important ally, the USA does not want us to do this. The policy the government is adopting makes us less secure, putting a crucial base into the ownership of a country that is no friend of the UK or US.

The tragedy arises because the Prime Minister thinks doing the bidding of some international lawyers is more important than serving the British people. It is particularly damaging when it turns out there is no legal case for the UK to answer in the ICJ.

[ Sources: Mauritian National Assembly | ICJ | Hansard UK | Hansard Mauritius | No.10 | No.11 ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Tues 18 Feb 2025

Click here to go to our news headlines

Please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.
And don't forget actually to post your message after you have previewed it!

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month