Mauritius is about to withdraw from the Commonwealth to be able to sue the British Government at the International Court of Justice, over the Chagos issue. They say the withdrawal from the Commonwealth is because they are not allowed take the case to the ICJ while being a member of the Commonwealth. Untrue argues the author who believes there may be a hidden agenda behind the move.
Why withdraw from the Commonwealth?
Is the Government taking us for a ride over the Chagos issue?
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 in Mauritius.
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. (One almost gets the impression that they must have warned the British High Commission that this bit of theatrical scene is only for local consumption.)
The Prime Minister was adamant – we will have to withdraw from the Commonwealth if we want to sue the British Government at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, over this Order in Council – That was the advice he received from his legal experts.
Immediately, without losing any time a high powered crisis meeting was held last Wednesday to discuss our withdrawal, with the Prime Minister himself, the deputy Prime Minister, Jayen Cuttaree, Emmanuel Leung Shing, Anil Gayan, Harry Ganoo, Suresh Seebaluck, Vijay Makhan and Dhiren Dabee - that meeting was to precede the one that our Prime Minister would have with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Don Mc Kinnon, scheduled for the 10 July in London, to discuss the possibility of withdrawal.
But what are they playing at? Do they really take us for a bunch of dimwits?
Let us clarify the situation: They are telling us that to be able to sue the British Government at the International Court of Justice, we need to withdraw from the Commonwealth because apparently one of the clauses in the convention that unites the Commonwealth countries and which is binding on us is that any grievance between two member countries have to be resolved within the ambit of the organisation and not outside.
False, there is no such legally binding agreement on members of the Commonwealth!
But, let us admit for argument’s sake that there was such an agreement within this voluntary club of nations, called the Commonwealth, (which by the way has as its objectives to fight for human rights; independent judiciary etc.) then, what stops us from suing the British Government anyway?
It would be understandable if the International Court of Justice in The Hague itself did not allow one member of the Commonwealth to sue another member 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? 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!
As if to stress this point the Commonwealth factsheet at the following address**, tells us: “The Commonwealth is committed to the principles of democracy and human
rights, and attempts to persuade members to adopt policies by conscience rather than through force. The fact that members are not legally bound to follow Commonwealth policy means that states can, and often have, followed policies that go against the Commonwealth.”
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 for our sovereign rights, which according to our PM is priceless, they would take the case to the International Court of Justice immediately, and at the same time fight within the Commonwealth to shame the British Government!
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 to 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.
Selva Appasawmy
5 July 2004
Email :
marronlibre@yahoo.co.uk
*
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20723
** http://www.globaled.org.nz/schools/pdfs/factsheets/Commonwealth%20Sheet.pdf.
Is the Government taking us for a ride over the Chagos issue?
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 in Mauritius.
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. (One almost gets the impression that they must have warned the British High Commission that this bit of theatrical scene is only for local consumption.)
The Prime Minister was adamant – we will have to withdraw from the Commonwealth if we want to sue the British Government at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, over this Order in Council – That was the advice he received from his legal experts.
Immediately, without losing any time a high powered crisis meeting was held last Wednesday to discuss our withdrawal, with the Prime Minister himself, the deputy Prime Minister, Jayen Cuttaree, Emmanuel Leung Shing, Anil Gayan, Harry Ganoo, Suresh Seebaluck, Vijay Makhan and Dhiren Dabee - that meeting was to precede the one that our Prime Minister would have with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Don Mc Kinnon, scheduled for the 10 July in London, to discuss the possibility of withdrawal.
But what are they playing at? Do they really take us for a bunch of dimwits?
Let us clarify the situation: They are telling us that to be able to sue the British Government at the International Court of Justice, we need to withdraw from the Commonwealth because apparently one of the clauses in the convention that unites the Commonwealth countries and which is binding on us is that any grievance between two member countries have to be resolved within the ambit of the organisation and not outside.
False, there is no such legally binding agreement on members of the Commonwealth!
But, let us admit for argument’s sake that there was such an agreement within this voluntary club of nations, called the Commonwealth, (which by the way has as its objectives to fight for human rights; independent judiciary etc.) then, what stops us from suing the British Government anyway?
It would be understandable if the International Court of Justice in The Hague itself did not allow one member of the Commonwealth to sue another member 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? 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!
As if to stress this point the Commonwealth factsheet at the following address**, tells us: “The Commonwealth is committed to the principles of democracy and human
rights, and attempts to persuade members to adopt policies by conscience rather than through force. The fact that members are not legally bound to follow Commonwealth policy means that states can, and often have, followed policies that go against the Commonwealth.”
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 for our sovereign rights, which according to our PM is priceless, they would take the case to the International Court of Justice immediately, and at the same time fight within the Commonwealth to shame the British Government!
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 to 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.
Selva Appasawmy
5 July 2004
Email :
marronlibre@yahoo.co.uk *
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20723 **
http://www.globaled.org.nz/schools/pdfs/factsheets/Commonwealth%20Sheet.pdf. 
e-mail: