Pen for Rights Seeks Clarification from UK Attorney General on the Legal Basis of the Proposed UK

Malé, Republic of Maldive

Pen for Rights has today submitted a formal letter to the Rt Hon Lord Hermer KC, Attorney General for England and Wales, requesting written clarification of the historical, constitutional and legal basis upon which advice was provided to His Majesty’s Ministers before His Majesty’s Government proceeded towards ratification of the proposed United Kingdom–Mauritius treaty concerning Folhlhavai, colonially known as Chagos. The correspondence follows Lord Hermer’s recent statement before the House of Commons Justice Committee, in which he confirmed that the Government remains determined to conclude and ratify the proposed agreement. It is addressed to the Attorney General in his constitutional capacity as the Government’s chief legal adviser and is directed to his Office rather than to the Ministers responsible for policy or diplomacy.

The letter asks whether particular categories of historical evidence, constitutional analysis and principles of international law were examined before advice was tendered to Ministers, and whether Parliament will receive the historical and legal background necessary to discharge its scrutiny function when the treaty is placed before it under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Pen for Rights has also made clear that the correspondence is not directed against the identity, dignity or rights of the present-day Chagossian community. Rather, it concerns the earlier historical and constitutional record of the territory and the legal process through which the proposed treaty has advanced.

The correspondence does not seek to advance a political argument for or against the proposed treaty. It seeks clarification as to whether the historical, constitutional and legal record examined before Ministers received advice was sufficiently complete to support a decision of such constitutional significance.

Six Areas of Clarification

The correspondence organises its questions into six thematic parts, each addressing a distinct category of historical, constitutional or legal concern.

The first examines the pre-colonial and cartographic record of Folhlhavai and asks whether His Majesty’s Government examined early documentary sources, historical maps and independent expert opinion relevant to the territory’s historical status before legal advice was provided to Ministers.

The second addresses the pre-plantation population history of the territory and asks whether His Majesty’s Government examined archival records, oral traditions and colonial classification practices bearing on the earlier demographic history of the islands.

The third concerns the constitutional basis of the Mauritian sovereignty claim and asks whether His Majesty’s Government examined the constitutional position of Mauritius at independence, subsequent domestic legislation, and the historical assumptions upon which the present sovereignty claim is said to rest.

The fourth examines the United Nations decolonisation framework and asks whether His Majesty’s Government examined key procedural, historical and constitutional assumptions underpinning subsequent international consideration of Folhlhavai before legal advice was provided to Ministers.

The fifth examines broader principles of international law relevant to sovereignty, treaty-making and third-state interests and asks whether His Majesty’s Government examined those matters before legal advice was provided to Ministers.

The sixth and final section concerns parliamentary accountability and asks whether Members of Parliament will be placed in possession of the complete historical, constitutional and legal background when the proposed treaty is brought forward for ratification.

Why the Attorney General’s Office?

The correspondence does not seek to rehearse the substantive legal case concerning Folhlhavai. Instead, it asks whether the historical, constitutional and legal record examined before Ministers received advice was sufficiently complete to support a decision of such constitutional significance. By directing the letter to the Attorney General rather than to Ministers responsible for policy or diplomacy, Pen for Rights seeks clarification from the constitutional office where that responsibility properly lies.

Published in Full

Pen for Rights has made the correspondence publicly available in the interests of transparency and evidence-based public discussion. The organisation believes that questions of sovereignty, decolonisation and international law should be capable of examination through primary documents, and that making institutional correspondence publicly available enables researchers, journalists, parliamentarians and legal practitioners to assess the questions directly rather than through selective quotation or commentary. The organisation looks forward to receiving a written response from the Attorney General’s Office. Any substantive response received will be published in full as part of Pen for Rights’ continuing public archive of institutional correspondence concerning Folhlhavai.

Document Information

Recipient: The Rt Hon Lord Hermer KC, Attorney General for England and Wales
Institution: Attorney General’s Office
Date Submitted: 29 June 2026
Subject: Request for Written Clarification of the Legal and Evidential Basis of Ministerial Advice concerning the Proposed United Kingdom–Mauritius Treaty relating to Folhlhavai (colonially known as Chagos)
Reference: PenForRights_Letter_to_Lord_Hermer_Folhlhavai_(Chagos)_Treaty_Clarification_2026-06-29.pdf
Category: Chagos Case Updates
Status: Awaiting Response

The complete correspondence is available below as a public reference document.

📄 Download the complete letter (PDF)

Related Documents

Additional institutional correspondence relating to the proposed treaty will be added to this archive as it becomes available.

Pen for Rights is an Indian Ocean decolonisation initiative engaged in historical, archival and legal research concerning unresolved questions of sovereignty, colonial administration and decolonisation in the Indian Ocean.