Constitutional Considerations Re The Chagos Affair

The Coronation Oath,
The Accession Declaration Oath,
The Privy Council Oath,
The Coronation Oath Act 1688 (1Wm & M, Ch6),
The Accession Declaration Oath 1910 (Ch29),
The Bill of Rights 1688 (1Wm & M Ch2),
The Act of Settlement 1700 (12 & 13 Wm III, Ch2).

The Bill of Rights 1688 lays down ancient and Indubitable Rights for the People and constrains all Prerogative to be used in compliance with the rule of law, to maintain and uphold the basic Liberty of the Subjects and eliminate all arbitrary power.

The Accession Declaration Oath Act 1910

“I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”

Both Oaths have been duly Signed by the King.

Areas of contention here are plain to see. The Monarch is prevented from Governing what was/is part of the Realm, Sovereign territory. The Subjects are deprived of their Homeland, their Properties, Civil Rights and Custom all as a matter of administrative convenience. This action can hardly be rated as providing law with justice in mercy to the displaced inhabitants and all whilst purporting to be in accordance with our law and custom.

The Accession Declaration Oath.
The importance of this cannot be stressed enough. This Oath not only secures the establishment of the Protestant Religion but it also secures the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects to be secured to the best of the Crown’s Powers to the true intent of the said enactments according to law. The law is utterly clear. Two of the enactments that are thus encompassed and entrenched by this Oath are, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement.

The Bill of Rights

The importance of the Bill of Rights is paramount to our Constitutional arrangements. The Bill of Rights is the short title given to the enactment (1Wm & M Ch2) its full title is:-
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.
The Accession Declaration Oath is in part founded by the Bill of Rights. It is commanded that the Accession Declaration Oath be sworn by a new Monarch prior to acting in Governance. The Bill of Rights does indeed secure the Protestant Religion to the Throne and so it is undeniable that the Accession Declaration Oath requires the Crown and all who serve under it to fully observe the commands.

Here are relevant clauses of complaint raised in the Bill of Rights against the abuses of the Stuart Kings:-

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

Illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

Several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgement against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

This Treaty would appear to be so expensive that it will indeed need financing arrangements to levy money into the long term future. Does the Treaty amount to the Prerogative causing a levying of money without an enactment? It certainly looks like it!

Obviously there is no conviction of any sort, yet forfeiture has been imposed upon the Chagosians. This seems to amount to an arbitrary procedure. If that is so then it is automatically void if it violates the clause for no fines and forfeitures without conviction. Dose it therefore accrue an arbitrary power to the executive?

“…that no declarations, judgements, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example.”

“… it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom and so shall be esteemed, allowed adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration, and all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come.”

This clause ensures that the Subjects can seek redress and remedy where injustice resides. It is said that the Monarch accepts the advice of its Ministers. Whilst this should generally be the case, if Ministers or even Parliament has erred and stepped outside the bounds of the Constitution (Bill of Rights and more) then there is surely constitutional compulsion of duty upon the Crown to nullify any unconstitutional action. If this was not the case then there would remain a breach of the Monarchical Oaths, breach of law and a state of Perjury.

The Act of Settlement 1700

Sovereignty is absolute in concept. You either have it or you don’t, it is not divisible.
The Nation vests the Sovereign power in the Monarch under the Rule of our Law. For the Rule of our Law to remain as the Birthright of the People, thus it cannot be subservient. Clearly the Ministers of the Crown are instructed by the above command from the Act of Settlement. Once again to ignore this Statutory duty in favour of foreign law is surely to Suspend the Birthright of the People particularly the Chagosians by assertion or arbitrary power.

Our law must be asserted by and in our Courts. If there is failure then Petition of Parliament is a further avenue to seek redress and remedy and if all else fails there is separately Petition of Right to the King. ‘Ubi Jus ibi remedium’ a Latin maxim of our law meaning Where There is Right There is Remedy.

…You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Kings’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to His Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to His Majesty
SO HELP YOU GOD”

Sir Robert Megarry V-C Manuel V Attorney General 1983 (C.A.)

And from a letter by Lord Kilmuir Lord High Chancellor which was placed into secrecy for 30 years re the Treaty of Rome:-

The Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, no practice or custom, however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the Subject, can be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions.

In 1976 In The Court of Appeal Lord Denning M.R, Upheld The Bill of Rights With This Statement In:-

Congreve v The Home Secretary
‘These courts have the authority – and, I would add, the duty – to correct a misuse of power by a Minister or his department, no matter how much he may resent it or warn us of the consequences if we do. … There is yet another reason for holding that the demands for £6 to be unlawful. They were made contrary to the Bill of Rights. They were an attempt to levy money for the use of the Crown without the authority of Parliament: and that is quite enough to damn them. Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food [1968] A.C. 997 is proof of what I say. It shows that when a Minister is given a discretion – and exercises it for reasons which are bad in law – the courts can interfere so as to get him back on the right road. Lord Upjohn put it well when he said at pp. 1061 –1062. ‘A Minister is a public officer charged by Parliament with the discharge of a public discretion affecting Her Majesty’s subjects; if he does not give any reason for his decision it may be, if circumstances warrant it, that a court may be at liberty to come to the conclusion that he had no good reason for reaching that conclusion and order a Prerogative writ to issue accordingly.’

The Vienna Law on Treaty Making 1969

Article 46 — Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties

1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.

• Misfeasance in Public Office.
• Malfeasance.
• Perjury.
• Treason.