Chagossians in Mauritius: Poverty, Structural Marginalisation, and the Need for Urgent Fact-Finding

1. Introduction and context

I am a human rights barrister of Mauritian heritage practising in England and Wales. I speak French and Mauritian Creole, which proved important in this work, as many Chagossians in Mauritius are not comfortable explaining legal or historical matters in English.Since 2022, I have been involved in Chagossian nationality and public law matters. In February 2026, I travelled to Mauritius as part of that ongoing work.

The purpose of the visit was practical and evidential. I wanted to understand, at first hand, the condition of Chagossians living in Mauritius, the obstacles they face in pursuing British citizenship claims, and the extent to which Mauritian institutions are in fact supporting them. What emerged was not an isolated set of difficult individual cases, but a pattern of structural disadvantage. I met approximately 60 to 70 families whose citizenship applications had been refused because they were unable to produce sufficient documentary evidence of lineage to Chagos. The problems were recurring, systemic, and in many cases entirely outside the control of the individuals affected.

This note sets out those findings and places them in the broader historical and political context of marginalisation in Mauritius. Its central conclusion is straightforward: Chagossians in Mauritius are living in poverty, remain socially and politically neglected, and require an urgent, independent fact-finding process so that policy in London is informed by reality rather than abstraction.

2. Citizenship refusals and structural evidential barriers

A striking feature of the visit was the scale of refusal decisions tied to documentary deficiency. Across the families I met, the same issues kept arising. Birth certificates did not always record the same place of birth for the same individual. In some cases, one record would refer to Peros Banhos or another Chagos island, while another would record Port Louis or Mauritius. Families described digitisation errors, fragmented archival systems, and records that appeared to exist somewhere in the Mauritian archive but which were not readily retrievable in practice.

This is not a minor administrative inconvenience. It goes directly to whether Chagossians can establish descent and therefore access citizenship rights. Where an entire community has already been displaced, poorly documented, and historically mistreated, a rigid insistence on neat documentary proof risks reproducing the injustice created by exile itself. Human Rights Watch has reported that after displacement to Mauritius many Chagossians lived in extreme poverty and struggled to obtain food, housing and work, while continuing to face discrimination.¹ The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination similarly stated in 2025 that it remained concerned by the ongoing effects of forced displacement of Chagossians, including poverty and discrimination, and by the lack of adequate information about the impact of support measures for those living in Mauritius².

During the visit, I met the Mauritian Attorney General, Mr Glover who indicated a willingness in principle to assist with document retrieval. I also met officials at the Civil Status Office, who confirmed in substance that archival material may exist while also acknowledging the practical difficulty of access. I was further told by the Deputy High Commissioner whom I also met during my visit that some archives may already be accessible to the Home Office. An FOI request has been submitted to the FCDO and a response is awaited. Taken together, these interactions reinforce the need for a coordinated archival mechanism rather than continued reliance on families to navigate a fragmented system alone.

There is also evidence of inconsistent decision-making. I reviewed examples suggesting that one sibling had been granted citizenship while another had been refused on materially similar evidence. That kind of inconsistency raises obvious concerns about fairness, rationality, and equal treatment. The urgency is increased by the fact that many refusals are now out of time for appeal or judicial review, while the statutory route itself expires in 2027. Without intervention, many affected individuals may permanently lose any practical route to citizenship.

3. Chagossians in Mauritius: poverty, neglect, and social exclusion

The most important conclusion from the visit is that Chagossians in Mauritius are not living in conditions that can plausibly be described as secure, integrated, or adequately supported. The communities I visited, including in Baie du Tombeau and Roche Bois / Roche Brunes, were living in materially poor conditions. While homes were generally clean, dignified, and well maintained, they were often modest and partly concrete, and overall conditions plainly reflected a level of deprivation. The issue is not destitution in a sensational sense. It is long-term marginalisation: poor housing, limited opportunity, weak state engagement, and a clear sense of abandonment.³

That picture is consistent with the wider published record. Research on Chagossian exile in Mauritius has long described it as marked by poverty and marginalisation, noting that displaced islanders settled in some of the most deprived areas of Port Louis and surrounding districts, including Baie du Tombeau, Cassis and Roche Bois, and that some families had to beg to survive. Human Rights Watch likewise records that Chagossians displaced to Mauritius faced extreme poverty, severe hunger, inadequate housing and sanitation, and ongoing discrimination⁴. More recently, UN reporting has continued to identify poverty and discrimination among Chagossians living on the mainland, while a 2025 shadow report raised questions specifically about housing and access to basic services for Chagossian families in areas such as Roche-Bois and Baie du Tombeau.⁵

This matters because a great deal of current political discussion about Chagos is conducted at the level of sovereignty, treaty arrangements, and geopolitical strategy. That discussion risks becoming detached from the actual social condition of the people most affected. On the ground in Mauritius, I saw no evidence of meaningful state-led integration of Chagossians as a community. I saw poverty, evidential barriers, and neglect. I also encountered people who felt that decisions were being made about them elsewhere, while their own daily reality remained invisible.

3.2 Discrimination, identity, and the “Creole” dimension

A particularly important finding was the way many Chagossians described not only economic hardship but also a layered form of social discrimination. In Mauritius, they are commonly perceived through the lens of race and ethnicity as Creoles, that is, as people associated with African descent in a society whose historical divisions remain socially and politically significant. But many of those I met felt they are marked out further: not simply as Creoles, but as Chagossian Creoles. In their account, that identity carries an added stigma.

This concern is supported by the wider literature and by international reporting. Research on Chagossian life in exile notes that the displaced joined an already marginalised Afro-Creole section of Mauritian society, in a context where ethnic categorisation significantly affects life chances. A 2020 Bertelsmann Stiftung country report on Mauritius records that the phrase “Malaise Créole” emerged from the perception within the Creole community that it had been sidelined from the mainstream economy⁶. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination also expressed concern in 2025 at the absence of adequate socioeconomic data on groups including Creoles, Chagossians and other people of African descent, precisely because the lack of such data impedes proper assessment of racial discrimination and social conditions.

There is also direct evidence of discriminatory experience among Chagossians themselves. A recent report submitted to a UN body stated that 50% of first-generation Chagossians reported job or related discrimination in exile, and 66% reported verbal abuse from host populations, with discrimination compounded by their status as people of African descent. Whether one agrees with every aspect of that report, it is at least consistent with what many families told me in person: that they feel looked down upon, excluded, and forgotten.

One detail from the visit remains especially striking. When I met some of the families and spoke with them in Creole, they said they could not believe that “God was visiting” them because nobody had come to see them, nobody had asked about their claims, and nobody seemed interested in what was happening to them despite the volume of Chagos-related debate in London. That reaction captured, in a single phrase, both the depth of neglect and the hunger to be heard.

4. Historical background: remembering the 1999 riots and the “Malaise Créole”

I remember the 1999 riots in Mauritius. They were a major national event and, in public memory, they remain inseparable from the idea of “Malaise Créole”. The immediate trigger was the death in police custody of the popular Creole musician Kaya, after which protest escalated into riots and wider unrest. Contemporary reporting described the violence as beginning with protest by members of the Creole community and then expanding into broader disorder.7 Academic and policy material since then has repeatedly treated the episode as exposing deep socio-economic and racial tension beneath the image of Mauritius as a successful multicultural state.

That memory matters here because the Chagossian experience in Mauritius cannot be understood in isolation from the wider condition of Creole marginalisation. The point is not to collapse Chagossians into the broader Creole category, because Chagossians have their own history, identity, and political claims. It is rather to recognise that in Mauritius they are received into a social order in which African-descended communities have long reported exclusion from power and from the benefits of economic growth. The “Malaise Créole” is therefore relevant background: it helps explain why Chagossians, already traumatised by forced displacement, would encounter not a neutral social environment but one in which race, class, and inherited disadvantage continue to shape everyday life.

That pattern also helps explain why the older 1968 violence is increasingly being read not just as communal disorder but as a crisis rooted in Creole marginalisation. Ariel Saramandi’s account and related scholarship argue that the riots were not simply symmetrical ethnic clashes; they exposed a deeper structure of exclusion, later pushed to the margins of official memory. In that reading, the Mauritian state’s public story of harmony has often coexisted with a quieter refusal to confront the historical and continuing disadvantage of Creole communities. That background makes it entirely plausible that Chagossians, many of whom are identified socially as Creoles, continue to face neglect and discrimination in Mauritius today.

5. Stakeholder engagement and the limits of official representation

I also met Mr Olivier Bancoult, a prominent Chagossian leader who has been involved in a number of the leading cases concerning the Chagos Islands. My impression was that his position aligned closely with both his own strategic interests and, at times, those of the Mauritian state. I did not find him to be particularly receptive to the range of views expressed by other Chagossian groups, and there appeared to be limited openness to alternative perspectives or approaches. Indeed, I formed the view that he was, at points, guarded and somewhat hostile when he understood, incorrectly, that I might be engaging on behalf of other groups.

He was strongly of the view that native Chagossians, meaning those born on the islands, should have precedence. He also maintained that Chagos should remain Mauritian and supported resettlement in principle. However, when pressed on the concrete question of how the Mauritian state would support that resettlement, there was little by way of specific detail.

He referred to assistance received from the Mauritian government, but what emerged did not appear to amount to a clear, Chagossian-specific programme of support. Rather, the examples resembled general measures available to older persons in Mauritius, such as health-related assistance. I could not identify from the discussion a coherent state policy of integration, uplift, or targeted support for Chagossians as a distinct and disadvantaged community.

This is significant because political representation cannot simply be assumed. The fact that one prominent figure speaks to government does not establish that the community as a whole is being heard, still less that its needs are being met. Recent UN reporting has already raised concern about the limited involvement of Chagossians in negotiations and reparations processes8 . My own visit reinforced that concern. There is plainly more than one Chagossian voice, and the poorest communities in Mauritius do not appear to be at the centre of present political decision-making.

6. Evidential and legal solutions

There is a practical path forward, but it requires structure and urgency. First, an archival intervention framework is needed. That means coordinated engagement with Mauritian authorities, organised retrieval of historic civil records, and independent evidential review. A community that was displaced, poorly recorded, and then left in poverty should not be expected to overcome archival fragmentation without institutional support.

Secondly, where documentary evidence is irretrievably incomplete, a carefully managed DNA evidence pathway should be considered. Used properly, DNA testing may help establish familial linkage, resolve sibling discrepancies, and supplement incomplete historical records. It is not a complete solution and must not become a substitute for proper archival work. But in some cases it may be the only realistic way to prevent arbitrary exclusion from citizenship. I have already begun exploring an initiative to collect DNA samples with philanthropic support connected to the Save Chagos campaign. Any such process would need funding, legal oversight, and strict evidential safeguards.

7. Conclusion

The core finding from the February 2026 visit is simple and should not be obscured by the complexity of the wider Chagos dispute: many Chagossians in Mauritius are living in poverty, experience discrimination and neglect, and face major evidential barriers in asserting citizenship rights[ British] Mauritius is often spoken of internationally as a model of multicultural success. That description is incomplete. It does not adequately capture the continuing significance of Creole marginalisation, nor the particularly vulnerable position of Chagossians within that hierarchy.

There is currently too much discussion in London about sovereignty and not enough attention to the actual conditions in which Chagossians in Mauritius are living. In my view, Mauritius has not meaningfully integrated the Chagossian community. The government has not engaged with them in any sustained way that I could observe. Even at senior level, there appears to have been remarkably little direct contact with those living in the most deprived areas.

8. Findings

The findings of this note are these:

Chagossians in Mauritius are living in materially poor and socially marginal conditions.

Their poverty is not incidental but part of a wider structure of neglect that has persisted since displacement.

They face recurring documentary problems that impede citizenship applications and are often beyond their control.

There is evidence of inconsistent decision-making in nationality cases.

They experience a layered discrimination: as people of African descent, as Creoles, and, in many cases, as Chagossians specifically.

Current political and diplomatic discussion does not adequately reflect their lived reality.

9. Recommendations

• An independent fact-finding visit to Mauritius should be commissioned urgently, with a mandate to report to Parliament and relevant oversight bodies.

• That exercise should examine living conditions, poverty, discrimination, access to records, and the actual level of state support available to Chagossians.

• The UK should review citizenship refusals involving Chagossian lineage, with specific scrutiny of inconsistent decisions and unrealistic evidential demands.

• A joint archival mechanism should be created to retrieve and verify Mauritian civil status records relevant to Chagossian descent.

• A properly regulated DNA evidential scheme should be explored for cases where documentary evidence cannot reasonably be reconstructed.

10. Why fact-finding is urgently needed

• It would allow Parliament and policymakers to assess the Chagos question on the basis of evidence rather than assumption.

• It would expose whether Mauritius in practice offers Chagossians a framework of dignity, support, and inclusion.

• It would bring into view a population that appears largely absent from high-level negotiations despite being directly affected by them.

• It would test claims made by political representatives and advocacy figures against the reality on the ground.

• It would help prevent a further crystallisation of injustice as the 2027 citizenship deadline approaches.

^{1 Human Rights Watch, “That’s When the Nightmare Started: UK and US Forced Displacement of Chagossians and Ongoing Colonial Crimes” (2023).}

^{2 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on Mauritius (2025).}

^{3 In impoverished Mauritius, talk of a Chagos deal rings hollow}

^{4 Maria Sylvia Gundowry, Chagossians in Mauritius: Forced Displacement and Marginalisation (University of Brighton).}

^{5 Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2020 Country Report: Mauritius.}

K Turner

3rd March 2026