The government of Maldives has expressed disappointment over attempts by the opposition coalition to mislead the public and the international community regarding the Chagos Archipelago issue.

The Maldivian government issued a statement regarding the claims by the Progressive Congress Coalition on Thursday evening, highlighting that the government has not at any time retracted its stand on the ongoing dispute surrounding the delimitation of the maritime boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zones of the Maldives and the Chagos Archipelago, contrary to claims by the Progressive Congress Coalition.

The government has confirmed that it remains steadfast in its position vis-à-vis its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the ongoing case at International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

The Maldivian government earlier informed the Government of Mauritius its decision to vote yes, should the General Assembly resolution entitled “Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965” be considered again.

The decision stemmed from the pronouncement by ITLOS that the ICJ advisory opinion that Mauritius has sovereign rights over Chagos will be fully accepted in the ongoing case.

The statement reads that resolution is not, “in any way” related to the issue of delimiting the maritime boundary between the Maldives and the Chagos Archipelago and this was made clear in the government’s communication to the Government of Mauritius that the support of Maldives to Mauritius’ claim on sovereignty over Chagos does not in any way prejudice or change Maldives’ ongoing claims at ITLOS.

Previously, Maldives voted “No” on the United Nations General Assembly resolution entitled “Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965”.

The government in its explanation of vote given following the consideration of the resolution in 2019, noted that this vote was not against the resolution, and not reflective of Maldives’ long-standing position on supporting decolonization efforts.

The government of Maldives also noted that the decision was without prejudice to the legal position taken by Maldives at ITLOS and the Submission made by the Maldives to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in 2010.

Further, the Maldivian government has also denied the allegations made by the Progressive Coalition that President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih acted outside of his constitutional mandate in connection with the matter.

Under Article 3 of the Maldives’ Constitution, the People’s Majlis has to be consulted if there are any changes to the Maldives’ territorial boundaries (12 miles from the coastline).

As the present case concerns the southern Exclusive Economic Zone of Maldives of which boundaries have never up until now been determined by the Law of Sea Convention, the statement reads that setting the boundaries of the EEZ as stipulated in domestic and international law is well within the mandate of government and we will see that those obligations are fulfilled.

The Maldivian government’s decision to seek resolution to the case and maximize its national interest via ITLOS was discussed and reached during a Cabinet meeting, after the government of Mauritius filed the case at ITLOS.

Contrary to the statement by the Progressive Congress Coalition, in almost a century of constitutional rule, and well beyond that, it should be noted that Maldives has never claimed sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago.

Further, the government has accused the Progressive Party of Maldives of attempting to mislead the public in a “petty” attempt at scoring “cheap” political points on a matter of “great” public sensitivity.

This is mirrored by the fact that the main opposition Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) was highly supportive of Mauritius’ claims over Chagos in its statement of 24 May 2019, where the Party had called on the Maldivian government to apologize to the people of Mauritius for voting against the UNGA resolution and advocated to handover the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius.

In said statement, the opposition party had also stated that the vote by the Maldives violates the rights of the people of Mauritius and came despite the government voting against the resolution presented by Mauritius to the UNGA, to seek the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion, on 22 June 2017.

Noting that the Maldives raised preliminary objections in the ITLOS case, noting that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case while there is an ongoing dispute over the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago between the United Kingdom and Mauritius on 18 December 2019, the Maldivian government stated that ITLOS held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case submitted by Mauritius, having regard to the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the question of the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago following preliminary hearings.

This decision was followed by the Maldivian government’s continued defence of its position regarding the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the Maldives and the Chagos Archipelago, at the Tribunal’s hearings.

Expressing disappointment over the political parties that attempt to mislead the public as well as the international community on such an issue, the Maldivian government expressed confidence that the issue of delimiting the maritime boundary between the Maldives and the Chagos Archipelago will be resolved in a fair and equal manner by ITLOS, taking into consideration the arguments put forward by the Maldives regarding this issue.