Starmer’s Friend Profited Millions from Chagos Islands Deal

Published: 18 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

A significant political controversy has erupted in the United Kingdom over the role played by a close associate of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in the contentious Chagos Islands sovereignty deal, with revelations that the lawyer in question earned a substantial sum for his legal work in negotiating the agreement. Philippe Sands KC, a prominent human rights lawyer and long‑time friend of Sir Keir, acted as chief legal counsel for the government of Mauritius in its protracted legal and diplomatic efforts to challenge British sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory and push for its return to Mauritian control.

Documents and reporting indicate that a team of lawyers led by Sands was allocated funds of at least £8.3 million from the Mauritian government’s budget for legal services connected to the Chagos negotiations between 2010 and 2024, with Sands expected to have taken the largest share of that sum as the chief counsel. While the exact amount he personally received is unclear, legal insiders note that his central role in steering the case toward a successful outcome for Mauritius would have positioned him for a substantial payday.

The revelation has added political fuel to an already heated debate around the Chagos deal, which saw the UK agree to cede sovereignty of the strategically valuable archipelago, including the key military base on Diego Garcia, to Mauritius under terms that will see Britain pay for a 99‑year leaseback of the base. Critics have long argued that the arrangement could cost British taxpayers tens of billions over the length of the agreement and could undermine national security interests.

Opposition figures and commentators have seized on the report of Sands’s earnings as evidence of a potential conflict of interest, arguing that the Prime Minister’s personal connections risked undermining confidence in the negotiation process and raised ethical questions about the involvement of influential insiders in matters of state importance. Conservative MPs have labelled the revelations “disturbing”, while some civil liberties groups have questioned the transparency of the legal arrangements underpinning the deal.

Defenders of Sands point to the independent role of legal counsel and the “cab‑rank principle” under which barristers take cases without discrimination, noting that lawyers routinely represent foreign governments and earn substantial legal fees in high‑profile international disputes. Supporters also argue that the Chagos deal was pursued in response to binding international legal opinions calling for the end of British administration of the territory.

Nonetheless, the issue has become a flashpoint in wider political controversy over Sir Keir’s handling of the Chagos issue, with rival parties linking the payments to broader concerns about judgement, transparency, and accountability in the Prime Minister’s decision‑making on foreign policy.

Read More At>>