First Reading On motion made and seconded, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. XXX of 2025) was read a first time. Second Reading THE LAW PRACTITIONERS (DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS) BILL (No. XXIV of 2025) The Attorney General (Mr G. P. C. Glover, SC): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I do not propose to proceed with the Law Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Bill (No. XXIV of 2025), and that notice has already been given to the Clerk of the National Assembly as far back as 18 November. THE LAW PRACTITIONERS (DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS) BILL (No. XXIX of 2025) Order for Second Reading read. (4.19 p.m.) The Attorney General (Mr G. P. C. Glover, SC): I, therefore, beg to move that the Law Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Bill (No. XXIX of 2025) be read a second time. Madam Speaker, the Law Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Bill is a reform that goes to the heart of the confidence that our citizens place in the legal profession – and, by extension, in the administration of justice itself. Legal practice is not merely a technical craft, it is surely not a business. It is a vocation rooted in trust. This Bill recognises that truth. It seeks to protect the overwhelming majority of practitioners who serve honorably, while dealing firmly and transparently with the minority whose conduct undermines that trust. Let me state at the outset what this Bill does not do. You see, Madam Speaker, I stand here as a member of that profession for forty years. A profession that I love and made me who I am, a profession that I share with colleagues whose work and ethics I admire. I know that most practitioners work with dedication, often unseen and unacknowledged. But we also know– because the public and the press regularly remind us of this – that this confidence has been weakened by a perception that misconduct is not always dealt with swiftly, visibly or consistently. I regularly receive visitors at my office. They are from all over the country; from all ages. Some come with all their documents, neatly compiled over the years. Some with just a handwritten note, their desperation poured on paper. They want help. They think the “Minister for Justice”, as they often mistake the Attorney-General to be, is the one they should turn to, because they feel the system has failed them. They do not understand why their plot of land is still disputed after many years, or why the Courts have not struck down this deed of sale which they say is fabricated. When it is explained to them what the Attorney-General’s Office does, and why it is better that they turn to their legal advisers for such matters – it is then that the stories come out. Madam Speaker, Again, we are talking about a handful of rotten apples. But the acts and omissions of these legal practitioners besmirch the whole profession. Often enough, fortunately, complaints will be unfounded. But even then, the perception of the public is that their accusations have not been dealt with efficiently or transparently. A few cases, a few repeated complaints, a few unresolved matters: sometimes, that is all it takes to erode the standing of an entire profession. Madam Speaker, this Bill is, therefore, not an act of suspicion. It is indeed an act of faith in the profession, and an act of responsibility towards the public. It is an expression of confidence that the reputation of law practitioners is worth protecting – that the best way to defend the honor of a profession is to ensure that its disciplinary framework is fair, independent, transparent, and effective. Before explaining the architecture of the Bill, it is important to reflect on why this necessary reform has taken this particular shape. For more than a century now, the system of self-regulation has prevailed. It has served us in some respects, but it has also shown clear limits. The more so in recent years with the rapid increase in the number of law practitioners. We are now almost 1600 barristers on the role of barristers in Mauritius; we are not talking of attorneys and notaries. The Bar Council, the Chamber of Notaries and the Law Society have all exercised disciplinary oversight over their members, and they have done so conscientiously. However, the system as a whole, has not delivered the consistency or transparency that a citizen can expect in this 21st century. Complaints accumulate, some remain unresolved for years, and some are closed or remain in limbo in ways that arouse suspicion. From the outside, observers conclude – rightly or wrongly – that lawyers cover for lawyers. This perception, fair or unfair, weakens the legitimacy of the profession and of the justice system itself. The Government Programme has made accessibility and efficiency of justice clear priorities, and credible disciplinary proceedings are part of that mission. Madam Speaker, we did not embark on this reform lightly. Even though the previous draft Bill had received the approval of Cabinet, I decided to go back to the drawing board after having listened and heard the qualms of law practitioners. We held lengthy consultations with all stakeholders: the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Chamber of Notaries, senior practitioners, young practitioners and members of the judiciary. And this, it must be said, built on past feedback of previous draft versions of this Bill, elaborated under the previous Government. They did seek to tackle the subject, but when met with serious objections, they lacked the ability to self-examine, compromise and improve. Since there was no political will, there was no change. Today, we have a Government with a clear political will and which will bring this much needed change. As I said, our consultations were substantive and intense. Many provisions of the Bill have been modified to reflect the concerns and suggestions of the professions. But on one point – the insistence on maintaining self-regulation – we could not compromise. Independence is essential. A disciplinary system must not only be fair; it must be seen to be fair. Madam Speaker, allowing the professions exclusive disciplinary authority no longer meets that standard. Still, I wish to emphasise that the professional bodies retain a key voice in the new Commission. They nominate and are part of the decision-making process of appointment of members, they contribute expertise, and they participate in all divisions. Their role is significant, though no longer exclusive. My attention was recently drawn to the fact that some law practitioners would have been perceived to have meddled in unsavoury matters and could well become members of the Commission because the seemingly sole criteria is the fact that he/she has spent 15 years in the profession. My short answer is this: although the possibility, however remote, does exists, we must however foster the belief that all three heads of the three professions and the Attorney- General of the day, would surely not fail in their duty to ensure that those appointed are beyond reproach, and this, without a shadow of a doubt. I am of those who firmly believe that our professions are teeming with good, honest practitioners who like to hold their head high. I trust that four of the most senior members of the profession will never stoop so low as to choose someone with an unenviable track record too sit on the Complaints Commission. That being said, allow me, Madam Speaker, to walk the House through the main mechanisms of the Bill, beginning with the establishment and composition of this new body: the Complaints Commission. Now Clause 4 of the Bill establishes that Commission, as an independent statutory authority empowered to receive, investigate and determine whether disciplinary proceedings should be initiated. It is expressly insulated from the “direction or control of any person or authority”. Clause 5 proposes that it be composed of a Chairperson, two Vice-Chairpersons with senior judicial or professional experience, as well as nine members nominated respectively by the Bar Council, the Law Society Council and the Chamber of Notaries. This ensures both independence and expertise. The creation of the Appointment Committee here is the precise result of the feedback we received from the professional bodies. There was a fear that an appointment process resting exclusively in the Attorney-General could transform this body into a controlling device of the executive over law practitioners. That had not been the intent of our first version, but the professional bodies pointed out that future abuses by less scrupulous people could not be ruled out. They were right and we listened to them. The structure of divisions under Clause 6 reflects the specificity of each branch of the profession: complaints against barristers are heard with two barristers sitting with the Chair or a Vice-Chair; similarly for attorneys and notaries. In doing so, the Bill ensures that standards are judged by those who understand the professional context, while avoiding the shortcomings of self-regulation. It is a balanced solution which fits the Bill. The procedure for opening complaints is set out clearly in Clause 8. Any person– including members of the public, judicial officers, the Attorney-General, and the professional bodies– may lodge a complaint. It must normally be filed within six months, though the Commission retains discretion to entertain serious complaints even if late. Importantly, the Commission may also initiate investigations proprio motu, that is, as you know Madam, Speaker, of their own initiative. Now, to avoid abuse, Clause 9 gives the Commission power to dismiss complaints that are trivial, frivolous or vexatious. Where matters are minor or stem from misunderstandings, Clause 10 empowers the Commission to attempt conciliation. This allows resolution without stigma and avoids unnecessary escalation. When an investigation is warranted, Clause 11 sets out the process: written explanations, summoning of witnesses, compulsory production of documents – even recourse to the Judge in Chambers where confidentiality is invoked. Investigations must be completed within 90 days. This is an important guarantee of timeliness and fairness. A staple inclusion now in the processes that this government is shaping for the justice system of this country. In cases of minor misconduct, where the practitioner has no prior record, Clause 12 allows the Commission to administer a caution, a proportionate measure that protects the public interest without imposing excessive sanctions. The Chief Justice, Attorney-General and the relevant professional bodies are then duly notified. Where there is no evidence of misconduct, Clause 13 requires written notification to all parties, with reasons, including the complainant, of course. This protects practitioners from the reputational harm of unsubstantiated complaints. If, however, the Commission finds a prima facie case, Clause 14 mandates that it refers the matter to the Supreme Court after obtaining the Solicitor-General’s advice on the formulation of charges. And, the Supreme Court then becomes the sole disciplinary authority. This, Madam Speaker, is a point worth emphasizing. Case law, such as that of Geemul, has firmly established that the disciplinary function of the Supreme Court over law practitioners are part of its inherent powers. That is, powers that, even when they are not expressly provided for, are necessary to the good functioning of its judicial mission. The principle relating to the retention by the colonial Courts of their powers of discipline over barristers and the rationale behind it, having been succinctly explained by Lord Denning in The Gambia, which was referred to with approval in the case of Geemul in Mauritius, and I quote – “By the common law of England, the Judges have the right to determine who shall be admitted to practise as barristers and solicitors; and, as incidental thereto, the Judges have the right to suspend or prohibit from practice. In England, this power has for a very long time been delegated, so far as barristers are concerned, to the Inns of Court; and, for a much shorter time, so far as solicitors are concerned, to the Law Society. In the colonies, the Judges have retained the power in their own hands at any rate in those colonies where the profession is fused … Now advocates and attorneys have always been admitted in the Colonial Courts by the Judges, and the Judges only. The power of suspending from practice must, we think, be incidental to that of admitting to practise, as is the case in England with regard to attorneys.” In Mauritius, as we all know, Barristers, attorneys and notaries are admitted to practise by the Supreme Court, and only, the Supreme Court can therefore decide on eventually removing them. We have thus preserved this principle here: the Commission investigates, but it is the Supreme Court that decides. This disciplinary process before the Supreme Court is addressed in Part III of the Bill. Clause 15 dictates the Court sits as a disciplinary tribunal composed of two judges, hearing the matter in open court except for justified exceptions. Clause 17, the Court may dismiss the charge, reprimand the practitioner, suspend him, strike him off the roll, or issue warnings for breaches relating to AML/CFT obligations. The Court must determine the matters within 90 days, unless the delay is justified. Clause 18 provides a right of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeal. Now, I have heard from certain quarters that this right of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeal is useless since the matter is dealt with at first instance by two judges. It is regrettable that such comments, devoid of any merit I must say at the outset, have been aired without having properly consulted the Civil Appeal Act 2025 which specifically provides that the Court of Civil Appeal will consist of at least two judges. Hence, it can have more than 2 judges. If I read section 11(2) of the Act, the Chief Justice may either proprio motu or on application in writing made to him by any party of an appeal stating the reason for such application, direct that the case be heard by more than 2 Judges having regard to the magnitude of the interests at stake or the importance or intricacy of the questions of fact or law involved. In these such disciplinary matters, since 1993 up to today, in all cases that we have seen, there have been at least three, and in certain circumstances, five judges that have been designated to hear such disciplinary matters at the Supreme Court. So, let my friends who had qualms rest assured that this was looked at properly. There are a few proposed amendments that have been circulated yesterday, and which I propose to move for at Committee Stage in clauses 5, 9 and 20. Madam Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is not punitive, but it is corrective. It strengthens the reputation of the profession by ensuring that complaints are handled fairly, independently and transparently. It protects the innocent by enabling frivolous complaints to be dismissed quickly, and it protects the public by ensuring that serious complaints are addressed with rigour. Madam Speaker, the professions themselves – in all our consultations – acknowledged that reform was needed. They too want clarity and consistency. They want a system that inspires public confidence. And they want unfounded allegations to be cleared without unnecessary delay. This Bill achieves that balance. This reform also forms part of the wider transformation of our justice system. We have modernised appeals, judicial review, legal aid, and we continue to work toward a justice system that is accessible, modern and humane. Public confidence is essential to that work. Citizens who entrust their liberty, their property, the fate of their families to a legal practitioner must feel secure. They must know that the system will protect them if something goes wrong – and conversely, a system that will also protect practitioners who face unjustified accusations. Fairness to all is the guiding principle. Madam Speaker, the legal profession is the backbone of justice. It is essential that it remains strong, respected and trusted. This Bill seeks to reinforce that trust. It is not a criticism of the many, but a safeguard against a few. It is an act of confidence in the profession and an affirmation of our duty to the public. I, therefore, Madam Speaker, commend the Bill to the House. Mr Uteem rose and seconded.

So, we are going to listen to hon. Ramdass. Then, we will break. (4.41 p.m.) Mr A. Ramdass (Third Member for Vieux Grand Port & Rose Belle): Merci, Madame la présidente. Madame la présidente, d’abord, permettez-moi de remercier et féliciter l’honorable Attorney General pour avoir présenté devant cette auguste Assemblée ce projet de loi, the Law Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Bill. Un projet de loi, Madame la présidente, qui a pour objectif la création d’une entité centralisée. Une entité, en fait, centralisée et chargée de traiter les doléances et les griefs formulés contre les praticiens du droit dans l’exercice de leur fonction. Pour bien comprendre cette démarche, Madame la présidente, il convient ici, pour moi, de rappeler que les praticiens du droit se retrouvent aujourd’hui à la croisée des chemins. En fait, au cœur même des interactions d’une part entre le citoyen et la réalité sociale dans laquelle il évolue de l’autre. L’avocat, en fait, Madame la présidente, est le professionnel visé par l’article 10 de la Constitution de notre pays, lequel article, en fait, garantit le droit à une représentation légale dans une poursuite, un procès au pénal. En ce qui s’agit, Madame la présidente, des revendications relevant du droit civil, l’avoué, lui, représente le justiciable en quête de justice et d’équité. Tandis que le notaire, lui, officier public habilité à dresser les actes authentiques, confère aux citoyens de ce pays, Madame la présidente, des droits et obligations dans leur vie sociale. Ces praticiens du droit constituent en fait des maillons essentiels de la mise en œuvre d’un aspect fondamental de notre démocratie, celui de l’accès à la justice. Madame la présidente, having said this, in fact, the noble nature, the nobility of the three branches of this profession – c’est-à-dire des avoués d’une part, les avocats et les notaires – stands from the crucial role which they are called upon to exercise in the administration of justice d’une part. Et deuxièmement, from the stringent ethical standards to which they are subjected under their respective code of ethics, c’est-à-dire the code of ethics for barristers d’une part, the code of ethics for attorneys et the code of ethics for notaries. However, we can only observe, Madam Speaker, regrettably so, that the existence of such rules does not, unfortunately, guarantee that all members of the legal profession will now toe the line and act in accordance with the principles that give to this profession its noble character. Given that any breach of the code ethics by a legal practitioner is likely to have a direct and sometimes even a severe impact on the lay client’s perspective, the lay client’s experience of the justice system, it is only then natural and indeed essential, Madam Speaker, that a stronger system of checks and balances be implemented once and for all. Whilst the Mauritius Bar Association (MBA), the Mauritius Law Society (MLS) et la Chambre des Notaires are already vested with investigative and disciplinary powers over their members as per the present law, the question now is whether the existing structures are still adapted to the realities of the profession and the realities of our society, Madam Speaker. Si nous prenons, par exemple, Madame la présidente, la Mauritius Bar Association, le Bar Council, comme l’a dit l’Attorney General, est composé de sept membres élus pour un mandat d’une année. De ces sept membres, deux doivent être impérativement pourvus d’au moins 10 ans de pratique. Ce qui implique donc que les cinq membres restants peuvent avoir moins de 10 ans de pratique. Et nous le savons tous, Madame la présidente, le barreau mauricien est de plus en plus jeune. Nous avons environ une centaine d’avocats qui prêtent serment chaque année. La proportion de nouveaux avocats inscrits en fait augmente constamment. De ce fait, il ne serait pas surprenant, et même peut-être un petit peu rafraichissant, d’un certain point de vue, d’avoir un Bar Council majoritairement composé de jeunes avocats. Cependant, Madame la présidente, bien qu’il soit une bonne chose que nous ayons de jeunes avocats sur le Bar Council et sur le conseil, il serait quand même légitime de s’interroger quant à leur niveau d’exposition et d’expérience et surtout quant à leur niveau de maturité pour traiter de ces cas potentiels de manquement déontologique. It has been a tradition at the Bar, Madam Speaker, to resort to senior members for guidance on matters relating to ethics and etiquette. In such a situation where the membership of the Bar is increasingly comprising of members of the younger generations, it is certainly time to consider shifting investigative and disciplinary powers to a stronger body, a consolidated body whose composition would reflect d’abord the seriousness of the task et bien sûr, the solemnity of the mission conferred upon it, that is to probe into allegations, into breach of code of ethics and misconduct and to determine, Madam Speaker, the consequences thereof. En dernier lieu, Madame la présidente, it cannot be ignored that with the exponential, as I said before, with the exponential increase in the number of law practitioners, the number of complaints registered by the Bar Council on the one hand and the Mauritius Law Society on the other hand, are also on the rise. And these bodies, Madam Speaker, are comprised of members elected on a periodical basis. I understand that it is one year for the Bar Council and if I am not mistaken, it is two years for the Law Society. And these members who are elected, they are elected to hold office, not on a full-time basis. Hence the volume of complaints and the limited mandate of each body necessarily implies that there are practical issues in the timely disposal of any grievance formulated by members of the public, giving rise to frustrations and the perception of injustice where no comprehensive action follows from a complaint or at least not in a timely manner. Donc, so much to say, Madam Speaker, que l’initiative de l’honorable Attorney General, en fait, arrive donc à point nommé. And, obviously if we go to the Bill, Madam Speaker, I do not propose to go through all the clauses of the Bill since the hon. Attorney General has already done so. But I will only address l’Assemblée on a few clauses. If we look at clauses 4 and 5, as regards to the Complaints Commission, Madam Speaker, le projet de loi propose la création sous la clause 4, d’une Complaints Commission. Une commission composée d’un président, de deux vice-présidents et de neuf membres et le président et les vice-présidents devront être respectivement un juge à la retraite, un ancien magistrat ayant servi au moins quinze ans, un avocat ou un law officer, comptant au moins 15 ans de pratique, donc une telle composition, Madame la présidente, garanti que les plaintes portées devant la commission seront examinées par des professionnels aguerris, capable de comprendre les attentes du public tout comme la réalité de la pratique de la provision légale. Autre clause, Madame la présidente, celle de la clause 15 qui parle du délai de 80 jours comme nous l’a si bien dit l’honorable Attorney General, en fait la clause 15 (4) prévoit un délai de 90 jours pour que la cour suprême statue sur toutes procédures disciplinaires portées devant elle. Cela constitue, de mon point de vue, Madame la présidente, une avancée majeure. Une avancée majeure puisqu’aucun délai n’existe actuellement sous les lois présentes et ce qui a conduit le fait qu’il y a aucun délai sous les lois existantes, a conduit à ce que plusieurs affaires restent sans suite, minant ainsi la confiance du public et là, Madame la présidente, je parle ici sous la correction de mes collègues avocats ici présents, dont vous- même, Madame la présidente, qui se souviendront de plusieurs cas, dont je ne citerai pas les noms ici, des cas de professional misconduct qui sont malheureusement restés impunis et sans aucune suite. J’en ai été témoin moi-même d’un gros cas de misconduct, il y a plus d’une dizaine d’années de cela. Je ne citerai pas le nom mais l’Attorney General saura de quoi je parle puisqu’il en a été témoin lui aussi. Madame la présidente, je faillirais à mon devoir, avant de terminer si je ne parle pas par contre d’un petit souci que j’ai par rapport à une petite incohérence, allons dire, par rapport à ce projet de loi. When I go through the Bill, Madam Speaker, I observe that it does not specify the burden of proof which rests upon the Complaints Commission when it prosecutes a case before the Supreme Court and in fact, when we look at the Bill, clause 17 (1)(b)(3), Madame la présidente, we note that the outcome of such proceedings before the court, may be as severe as the erasure of the name of a law practitioner from the roll. This is indeed very extreme, Madam Speaker. It is indeed a very extreme measure. La radiation complète d’un avocat, d’un avoué ou d’un notaire. Je ne suis pas contre, mais par contre puisqu’il y va du livelihood du praticien, would it not be appropriate, Madam Speaker, to specify in the Bill that the burden of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt or at least a higher burden than that of the civil burden of proof which is on the balance of probabilities. I am saying this, Madam Speaker, of course, since the erasure of a professional, of a barrister, a notary or an attorney from the roll, in fact goes to the very ability of that law practitioner to earn a livelihood and this should not therefore be taken lightly. Madame la présidente, en guise de conclusion, in fact, it is true to say that this Bill addresses many of the shortcomings in the existing structures. In fact, it enhances the process in a bid to hold accountable those law practitioners which disregard completely the letter and the spirit of the code of ethics. Et, ce projet de loi, Madame la présidente, aura pour vocation de rendre à la profession légale ses lettres de noblesse puisque trop longtemps, Madame la présidente, les valeurs de cette profession ont été effritées par les agissements de certains, des agissements impunis, des agissements sans qu’aucune sanction ne soit prise contre ces brebis galeuses de la profession qui ternissent malheureusement la réputation de tous les avocats. Merci, Madame la présidente.

Merci ! Sur ce, nous allons prendre un peu de thé. At 4.52 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.39 p.m., with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Please be seated. Yes, hon. Mr Lobine. (5.40 p.m.) Mr K. Lobine (First Member for La Caverne & Phoenix): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. Attorney General for bringing such an important reform before this House. The objective is clear and commendable, that is, to modernise our disciplinary architecture for the legal profession, provide procedural clarity and enhance public trust in the administration of justice. And, as the hon. Attorney General rightly pointed out, there was a first draft then there were consultations with the Bar Council, with the Law Society, with the Chambers of Notaries and there were several proposals made and as lawyers, we are glad that there has been a consensus and we are here before this House with a very comprehensive and well-drafted piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, this effort deserves recognition because it is taking us back to 1998 whereby there was a Presidential Commission appointed Lord Mackay, of Clashfern to prepare a Comprehensive Report with regard to reform of the judicial and legal system and also to have a look at the legal profession. So, way back, when there was the labour-led government in 1998 with the then Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister, Dr. Ramgoolam, that reform was on the agenda. I am glad today that we are continuing in this process to have access to justice and if I am not mistaken, it’s maybe the 27th or 28th Bill of the Attorney General before this House to enhance access to justice with such a comprehensive piece of legislation, again. Madam Speaker, the major change, the fundamental change being brought through this Bill is the full centralisation of disciplinary intake and investigation. Hon. Ramdass spoke about Clause 4 whereby the establishment of the Law Practitioners Complaints Commission and also complemented by Clause 8 subsection 2 with regard to – “Where a complaint against a law practitioner is addressed to the Attorney-General, the Bar Council, the Chamber of Notaries and the Mauritius Law Society Council, that complaint shall promptly be referred to the Complaints Commission.” In the legal profession, Madam Speaker, there are a few that apprehend this piece of legislation. They thought that this is a radical shift or change from what we are used to, that is, self-regulation but I would like to take a few examples so that our fellow lawyers will understand that the trend is for reform and this is being done in many Commonwealth countries. So, this is not a radical proposition; this is in line with what many Commonwealth countries have been doing for years now. We take the example of Australia, Madam Speaker. Each State and territory has a Legal Services Commission. These are statutory bodies completely independent from Bar Associations. Their mandate is to investigate, mediate, and if necessary, prosecute legal misconduct before independent tribunals. In the same vein, Madam Speaker, in New Zealand, they have the Lawyers and Conveyance Act of 2006 created a single-entry complaints service managed by the New Zealand Law Society but decisions are reviewable by the Legal Complaints Review Office, an entirely separate and impartial body. In South Africa, Madam Speaker, they took the bold step through the Legal Practice Act 2014 which established the Legal Practice Council, a unified regulatory authority, overseeing all legal practitioners. It ensures that the public can lodge complaints in a transparent and efficient manner. Even in Canada, Madam Speaker, in Ontario, the Law Society functions as both a regulator and a complaint handler but decisions are made by disciplinary tribunals with strict rules of independence and lay participation. So, this is not something out of the blue. This is the trend with regards to the modernity that we are bringing in the legal profession. The hon. Attorney General pointed out, we have got more than 1600 lawyers now and hon. Ramdass, has been saying that around 100 lawyers are being called to the Bar almost every year in Mauritius. So, the legal profession is a blend of old and newcomers with speciality in very specific fields.

It was 50 when I started.

50?

Yes, only 50.

So, all these, Madam Speaker, bring us to what we need – reform and, this well-drafted piece of legislation is part of this process of access to justice. Madam Speaker, there is a very important clause that I would refer to. I would not be repetitive to what hon. Ramdass and the hon. Attorney General said but I would like to specify on Clause 9 of the Bill. It empowers the Commission to dismiss complaints that are frivolous, trivial and vexatious. This is an essential filter because, Madam Speaker, unfortunately in Mauritius, we have got a few jack of all trades and master of none. They know the profession more than others and there are so many adverse comments because they do not know how the profession functions. For example, you take the cab rank rule. Many people do not know the basics of this important rule because this is for lawyers. I must admit that at the level of the Bar, we need to disseminate, educate and give proper guidance as to how the profession is all about. So, this important filter is something that is very commendable. This is also mentioned in clause 8 (2) whereby all complaints would be now directed to the commission. Now, what are the risks and the practical issues? The practical issue is that the commission may risk becoming administratively overburdened. Why do I say so, Madam Speaker? Because this practical issue is already well documented internationally. A significant proportion of complaints received by legal regulators worldwide relates to delays, communication issues or fee disputes, none of which constitute misconduct. That is why I would make a proposal here. In the United Kingdom, there is the Legal Ombudsman. I will call it the Legal Ombudsperson. So, in the United Kingdom, Madam Speaker, service quality complaints are handled by the Legal Ombudsman, allowing disciplinary bodies to focus solely on allegations of ethical or professional breaches. Similarly, Madam Speaker, New Zealand separates preliminary assessment and service complaints from serious disciplinary matters through the lawyers’ complaints service. Introducing a similar mechanism here, whether now or at a later subsequent phase, could greatly enhance the efficiency and clarity of the system. Why do I say so, Madam Speaker? With the establishment of a Legal Ombudsperson, this would bring three major benefits. It would firstly educate the public about the distinction between misconduct and service complaints. It would also filter out non-disciplinary matters, ensuring the commission’s resources are used appropriately. Thirdly, to protect the commission from becoming overwhelmed, allowing it to concentrate on serious misconduct as intended by this Bill. The commission’s mandate, Madam Speaker, as structured under clause 8 to clause 14, is to assess professional misconduct. A complementary mechanism to deal with service issues would ensure disciplinary system remains accessible, efficient and fair. So, this is the proposal that I am making to the hon. Attorney General. This goes in line with the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles. These are guidelines with regard to promoting good governance, democracy, but also to the rule of law, access to justice, and most importantly, the independence of the legal profession. In this vein, I would humbly invite the hon. Attorney General to consider this suggestion offered in a spirit of constructive reflection. I do not want to detract from the merit of this Bill. Rather, the aim is to reinforce effectiveness with regard to a balanced, independent, efficient and capable of maintaining public trust in this new commission. At the end of the day, Madam Speaker, the Law Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Bill is a serious and thoughtful reform that aims to strengthen transparency and also to give confidence to the public at large that the legal profession is here to participate in this administration of justice. So, I would invite the hon. Attorney General to kindly consider whether maybe at a later stage, we could implement this Legal Ombudsperson so that we can filter and also disseminate what qualifies as misconduct or other complaints that could be dealt at administrative level. This is my participation in this debate, Madam Speaker. I thank you for your kind attention.

Thank you. Hon. Minister! (5.51 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, 32 years ago, on a cold evening of 25 November 1993, I was called to the Utter Bar of the Society of Middle Temple. Incidentally, on the very same day, at the very same time, our hon. Prime Minister was being called to the bar at the Inner Temple! In England, every barrister has to be a member of the professional association known as an Inns of Court. We have the Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn, Inner Temple and Middle Temple. What surprised me when I was admitted to the Bar is that each of these association carries the name ‘Honourable Society.’ When you are called to the Bar, you become a member of the Honourable Society of one of the Inns of Court. Why? Because as is set out in the first paragraph of the Code of Ethics for Barristers, I quote – “Honesty, integrity, independence and strict compliance with professional standards remain constant requirements for all those who seek to practise at the Bar.” Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, not all practitioners adhere to these ethical principles today. Most of us do, but not all of us. This Bill is providing the necessary legal framework for law practitioners to be held accountable for their actions and be subject to disciplinary proceedings, and where necessary, sanctions. So, as at today, there are two separate and distinct mechanisms to deal with cases of breach of etiquette, breach of professional misconduct involving law practitioners. By law practitioners, I mean barrister, attorney-at-law and notary public. First is by self-regulation. The professional bodies of which the law practitioner is a member takes the sanction. The Bar Council, the Mauritius Law Society Council or the Chamber of Notaries have the discretion to investigate any report made to it regarding alleged act of professional misconduct. The professional bodies can then reprimand or severely reprimand a law practitioner. However, they are required by law – and that is very important – to attempt to reach an amicable settlement, an amicable solution, and afford the law practitioner with an opportunity to be heard. Only where after preliminary investigation, there is prima facie case of serious professional misconduct that the professional body refers the matter to the Supreme Court for determination. So, that is the first general mechanism. The second mechanism to investigate and institute disciplinary proceedings against a law practitioner rests with the hon. Attorney General. The Attorney General has the power, under the Law Practitioners Act, either on his own initiative, proprio motu, or on receipt of a complaint, to enquire into act done by a law practitioner. Where the Attorney General is of opinion that the act done by a law practitioner calls for the institution of disciplinary proceedings, he has to submit a detailed report to the Chief Justice who then proceeds to hear the matter. So, first, a self-regulation. Second, there is the Attorney General who refers the matter to the Supreme Court. Then, third, the Supreme Court itself under its inherent jurisdiction has the power to hear and determine any complaint against a law practitioner under Section 18 of the Courts Act. But as at today – and this is not going to change with this new Bill –, it is only the Supreme Court that has the power to order the name of a law practitioner be erased from the roll, so that he can stop practicing. I pause here to recomfort hon. Ashley Ramdass that the Supreme Court always acts reasonably when imposing the sanction. In the case of Baboolall, for example, the Supreme Court held that the case will be visited by a suspension of one year. So, they gave a suspension of one year. However, since it was the very first case of disciplinary proceeding for such professional misconduct which did not involve dishonesty towards the client, the court said that they were prepared to suspend the decision for a period of three years. So, the Supreme Court is not going to lightly suspend a law practitioner or remove him from the roll. But, Madam Speaker, in practice – I totally concur with the hon. Attorney General –, the system is not seen to be working. The Supreme Court is rarely called upon to determine allegation of professional misconduct against law practitioners. I have gone through all the law reports in the past 25 years. There are only seven reported cases where disciplinary proceedings against law practitioners have been brought before the Supreme Court. Two barristers and one attorney had their names removed from the roll of practicing law practitioners, and one barrister was suspended for a period of six months. Why? Is it because all practitioners are adhering to their code of ethics? Rather, there is the perception, Madam Speaker, that the current mechanism of disciplinary action against law practitioner is not working. Professional bodies, be it the Bar Council, the Law Society Council or the Chamber of Notaries hardly ever report a matter to the Supreme Court for disciplinary proceedings. There is the perception of the lawyers sticking together. You know, ‘You scratch my back, I will scratch yours.’ True it is that the law, as it currently stands, gives the power for them to attempt an amicable solution. Le linge sale après tout se lave en famille, Madame la présidente. But the law also requires them to refer cases to the Supreme Court whenever there is prima facie a serious breach of code of ethics. I will give an example, Madam Speaker, to illustrate my point. This is within the public domain and concerns this august Assembly because it was the subject of a PNQ last year on 12 June 2024. It concerned the conduct of then Minister of Environment, Mr Kavydass Ramano. It was established that whilst Mr Ramano was Minister of Environment, an application was received at his Ministry of Environment for an environmental impact assessment. The application was supported by a certificate, a document, under the letterhead of Étude Ramano signed for Mr Kavydass Ramano. There was a clear conflict of interest. You cannot be a Minister, be called upon to determine an EIA application, and your own personal notarial practice, l’Étude, is signing a letter confirming the ownership of the land – subject matter of the EIA application. The more so when the certificate is signed by an employee of that notary public. According to the reply, the application was made on 08 May 2024, that is, more than four and a half years after Mr Ramano had been a Minister. So, he cannot come and say that these are works that he was doing before becoming a Minister. Four and a half years later, his Étude, of which he was the sole owner, was still operating and issuing certificates which are considered by his Ministry. Was that normal? Was that ethical? Yet, the Chamber of Notaries refrained to comment. In a communiqué, they stated, I quote – « Cette situation pourrait faire l’objet d’enquêtes, et par conséquent, la Chambre se voit contrainte de ne faire aucun commentaire sur cette affaire spécifique. » What happened since? Where is the Chamber of Notaries? Have they conducted any investigation? Have they taken sanction? Have they referred the matter to the Supreme Court? Another example: the case of another notary public, Mr Vinay Deelchand. There were endless complaints from the public concerning his failure to comply with his statutory duties. In September 2024, the Supreme Court even ordered him together with another defendant to pay the sum of Rs2 million to a plaintiff concerning a fictitious sale. Yet, have you ever heard les notables, the honourable members of the Chamber of Notaries referring a case of Mr Deelchand to the Supreme Court for disciplinary action? The list is long, Madam Speaker! Now, what about the then Attorney General? I will call him double honourable; hon. Member of an Inns of Court and a former hon. Member of Parliament. I am taking exception to the incumbent. From 2007 to 2009, there were a few cases where the Attorney General had reported to the Chief Justice for disciplinary proceedings. Mostly were following conviction in criminal cases. But no disciplinary proceedings seemed to have been reported since 2014 by the then Attorney General. Madam Speaker, probably, according to their personal ethical standards, there was no professional misconduct. May I remind you who were those Attorneys General? Hon. Yerrigadoo, l’homme aux honoraires de R 32 millions! The Minister who was forced to resign over the Bet 365 scandal. Who was the other Attorney General? Hon. Maneesh Gobin, currently on bail for the offence of public official using office for gratification in breach of Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Not so honourable after all! Madam Speaker, the problem is when you give the power to the Attorney General to initiate or not to initiate disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Court, you are effectively giving the power to a politician – again, no offence intended to the present incumbent –, but you are giving power to a politician to use this power to persecute a political opponent or use that power to protect his political allies. That is the problem with the current system. In June 2018, the Commission of Enquiry on Drug Trafficking in Mauritius, chaired by the former Justice Lam Shang Leen, published its report. It sent shivers up and down the spine of law practitioners. It uncovered a fine-tuned system where certain law practitioners seem to be acting as accomplices for drug traffickers. To cite an extract of the report, at paragraph 19.5.3., – and that paragraph has not been expunged by any order of the court – it is worth listening, Madam Speaker – “The Commission has very strong reason in the light of the evidence adduced before it to believe that there is a handful of barristers who may have acted and may still be acting in a most unethical manner, if not engaging in illicit activities such as obstructing the course of justice, intimidating witnesses, causing witnesses to diverge from their original statement version, thereby abstaining from incriminating drug barons. They were also likely to have been using drug money to finance political campaigns, possibly money laundering the proceeds of drugs trafficking in accepting wilfully tainted money, accepting cash beyond permissible amount and not accounting same in their VAT receipt, and generally fostering incestuous relationship with drug tycoons.” Who were the law practitioners cited in the report? Who were les brebis galeuses? Most, if not all, were from the MSM party, Madam Speaker! As the hon. Prime Minister said ‘kala prizon’, unsolicited visits to prisoners, mobile phone communication with drug lords serving their sentence in prison! Let me clear something. In the case of hon. Rubina Jadoo, she was a Minister. So, it is directly relevant to this House. She had to resign after her name was cited in the report. She went to the Supreme Court and asked for a judicial review of the findings of the commission. On two complaints, namely the phone communication with prisoners and the unsolicited visits, the Supreme Court found no merit in her complaints and held that the decision of the Commission of Enquiry was not manifestly unreasonable or irrational. And what happened? Instead of the former Attorney General initiating an enquiry against the lady, the MSM gave her a ticket to run as candidate in Constituency No. 2 in the elections of 2024! Luckily the electorate threw them out. So, Madam Speaker, we can see even under the self-regulation or under the existing Attorney General, it is not working. Legal proceedings, disciplinary proceedings are not being brought against law practitioners. Now, this will change with this Bill. With this Bill, we will no longer have self-disciplinary actions by the Professional Association, the Bar Council, the Law Society Council, the Chamber of Notaries and no more, any power to the Attorney General to decide whether to institute legal proceedings or not. Instead, we are replacing it by a new independent Law Practitioners Complaints Commission which will be an independent body and it will be under the direction or control of no person or authority. What is interesting, Madam Speaker, with this body, the Attorney General will not sit on any of the inquiries. In fact, there will be a Chairperson or a Vice-Chairperson and two members of the relevant profession – • If there is an inquiry over conduct of a barrister, there will be two barristers sitting on the Committee. • If there is an inquiry over an attorney, there will be two members of the Law Society. • If there is an inquiry over the conduct of a public notary, we will have two public notaries. What is also a very important departure from the existing law is that today professional misconduct has been defined widely. It does not cover only breaches of the Code of Ethics but also covers improper, disgraceful, dishonourable or unworthy act that has brought his profession or her profession or the administration of justice into disrepute. So, that goes wider to just the black letter of the Code of Ethics and also goes in his personal life, you know, the way he has behaved in public, whether that has brought the profession in disrepute. The Bill, as the hon. Attorney General mentioned, has now a set deadline; six months to report the complaint and 90 days to complete the inquiry. This is most welcomed because for those law practitioners who want to clear their names, it is very important that there is a set timeframe to do so. Another important change – the disciplinary proceedings will now be heard in front of a bench consisting of two judges and the aggrieved party can appeal to the Court of Civil Appeal. This is a major difference from the current practice where disciplinary hearings are heard before three judges and the appeal is to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Madam Speaker, the legal profession of which I am a part of, is in its very essence a very noble profession and it goes, or at least should go, without saying that those admitted to this profession must uphold the highest ethical standards and a top-notch professional conduct. Regrettably, even in the most respected profession, there are a few whose conduct tarnish the reputation of the many. This Bill is not just a legislative reform but a structural safeguard for the rule of law, for fairness and for equal accountability whether the lawyer is well connected or not. Thank you.

Thank you, hon. Minister. Hon. Attorney General, I know you do not like me saying ‘winding up speech’. I just checked; it is perfect English but I will ask you to round up. (6.10 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, there is a well-known line from Shakespeare that is often quoted and let me hasten to add that before I actually spell out the words, that I do not approve, of course, of its contents. It is spoken not by reformers in the play Henry the Sixth but by those plotting to destroy the rule of law, and it goes as follows – “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” The meaning is very simple. If you wish to collapse a society, you begin by silencing those who know the law, who defend rights, who safeguard due process. Far from being an insult to the profession, the line just quoted, is thus a reminder of the centrality of lawyers in any functioning democracy. Madam Speaker, this is why the Bill before the House today matters. It recognises that the strength of a democracy is tied to the strength of those who serve justice and it recognises that public confidence is the bedrock on which the legal profession must stand. If at this stage, I could respond to my learned friends who have addressed the House today, to the hon. Ramdass, I will draw attention to the fact that section 15(2)(c) clearly spells out that the disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Court shall be conducted in the same manner as proceedings in a civil matter, and of course, that is, on a balance of probabilities. The suggestion that lawyers should be treated differently from any other professional being placed before a Disciplinary Committee under the Workers’ Rights Act would not sound very good. If it is good for everyone else, it should be good enough for us. As far as my learned friend, hon. Lobine’s comments are concerned, I take onboard the suggestion of the complementary mechanism of the legal ombudsperson but I do think that at this stage, and I take his point that we should perhaps look at this in the future, if ever, we have this administrative overburden on the system. On the part of hon. Uteem, let me say that I have nothing to add. The vast majority of our attorneys, barristers and notaries, Madam Speaker, serve with dignity and competence but we must acknowledge an uncomfortable truth; confidence has been shaken, not because the profession is corrupt but because the system for dealing with the few cases of misconduct has not kept pace with modern expectations. The Bill is not a reprimand of the profession, it is an act of respect, an act of commitment, an act of confidence. It says clearly; ‘your honour matters’, ‘your role matters’, ‘your credibility matters’ and we will help you protect it with a system that works, that is transparent and independent. Our Government, Madam Speaker, has promised to renew the foundations of our institutions. We have said that democracy must be strengthened not only in its grand principles but in its everyday workings. A justice system cannot be credible if citizens doubt whether misconduct in the legal profession is treated impartially, nor can it inspire confidence if lawyers themselves feel that well-intentioned colleagues are tarnished by the acts of a few. The Bill answers those concerns with balance and clarity. Madam Speaker, a society that values the rule of law must also value those who practice it and valuing them means helping them uphold the highest standards. That is what this Bill does. It protects the many from being stained by the few. It protects citizens who seek justice and it protects the integrity of the three professions and that is indispensable to the health of our democracy. I thus commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) THE LAW PRACTITIONERS (DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS) BILL (No. XXIX of 2025) Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 (Composition of Complaints Commission). Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendment in clause 5 – “in clause 5, in subclause (4), by deleting the words “nominate 3 attorneys, 3 barristers and 3 notaries” and “nominated attorneys, barristers and notaries” and replacing them by the words “nominate 3 barristers, 3 notaries and 3 attorneys” and “nominated barristers, notaries and attorneys”, respectively;” Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 (Trivial, frivolous or vexatious complaints). Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendment in clause 9 – “in clause 9, by deleting the words “section 9” and replacing them by the words “section 8”;” Amendment agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 10 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20 (Consequential amendments) Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendment in clause 20 – “in clause 20, in subclause (2), by deleting the words “subsection (2)” and replacing them by the words “section 19H(2)”” Amendment agreed to. Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 21 and 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The title and enacting clause were agreed to. The Bill, as amended, was agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Law Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Bill (No. XXIX of 2025) was read the third time and passed.