Second Reading THE LEGAL AID AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE BILL (NO. XIII OF 2025) Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Attorney General! (4.12 p.m.) The Attorney General (Mr G.P.C. Glover, SC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move that the Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill (No. XIII of 2025) be read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, amongst the reforms I have introduced in this House so far, this Bill holds for me a special place. As a law practitioner of four decades now, I have seen the workings of our judicial system up close, and especially, the effects it can have on the lives of our citizens – the confusion and loneliness which one can feel when confronted by rules and procedures one does not understand. The helplessness of knowing that one may have a legal right – but that to defend it would be beyond one’s means is more often than not, unbearable. Justice in this country has, over the decades, earned its reputation of quality and integrity. But it also carries with it, increasingly, unfortunately, the perception that it is a system that only works well for you if you can wait for it and if you can pay for it. This cannot go on. This morning itself, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the L’Express newspaper, we have read about the plight of single parents who struggle to overcome financial, legal and administrative obstacles. As the article right puts it, I quote – « (…) la seule solution reste le tribunal – avec des délais longs, des coûts élevés et un épuisement émotionnel garanti. » My colleague, the Minister of Gender Equality and Family Welfare, is tackling this particular issue, as explained in the article. Thus, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the challenge of making access to justice easier and more affordable remains as crucial as ever. The Bill before the House today tackles a question that is fundamental: whether our justice system still serves the many, or increasingly only the few. It invites us to consider what it truly means to say that we are all equal before the law. The legislation which we propose to replace dates back to 1973. That was a different time, a different society. In the fifty years since, our courts have modernised, our population has grown, our economy has evolved. But the legal aid framework has barely moved. What we bring before the House today, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is not a mere amendment, but a comprehensive reform. It seeks to restore legal aid to its rightful place as a living, relevant instrument of fairness and the rule of law. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the Bill is simple and vital. It is to ensure that those who cannot afford legal representation are not left without recourse. Whether before the courts or at the police station, whether in civil disputes or criminal proceedings, the State should step in to ensure that legal representation is available for people who are in financial need. To that end, this Bill – (i) Raises the eligibility thresholds of legal aid for both income and assets, reflecting present-day economic realities; (ii) Broadens the scope of offences for which legal aid and assistance may be granted; (iii) Imposes obligations on both the courts and police officers to inform individuals of their rights to apply for legal aid and legal assistance, respectively, and (iv) Simplifies the process through a unified application of the system. It also provides, for the first time, a comprehensive definition of assets, and strengthens the guarantees of fair legal representation at both trial and pre-trial stages. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us begin with the basic figures. Under the current law, an adult earning more than Rs15,000 a month is generally excluded from legal aid. For legal assistance during a police enquiry, the limit is even lower, it is Rs 10,000. These figures have not been revised since 2018. Yet, in the same period, the minimum wage has gone from Rs9,000 to Rs17,110, and the prices of basic commodities have soared by 30 to 100 percent, as detailed in the Prime Minister’s Report on the State of the Economy earlier during our mandate. The result is obvious. Someone earning minimum wage today is too poor to pay a lawyer, but considered too “rich” to qualify for legal aid. That is not a small flaw. It is a breakdown of the system’s whole purpose. This Bill sets a new income threshold: Rs25,000 of average monthly household income, but calculated on a net basis. I will explain this. Yes, we are including in the calculation the income of one’s spouse if one is married. But crucially, this sum will be the net income that someone can actually use and spend, that is, what is left after deducting from his earnings his average household expenses and the repayment of his debts. For instance, a couple may be earning salaries of Rs30,000 each, gender equality, amounting to a total of Rs60,000 for both of them. But they may have expenses such as the housing loan of say Rs20,000, utilities bills of Rs5,000, regular groceries bills of Rs15,000 a month, and spend Rs5,000 on their children’s school van. In total, their average monthly income for the purpose of this law would not be Rs60,000 but Rs60,000 minus the Rs45,000 which I have just detailed, that is Rs15,000. They would therefore fall under the threshold of this Bill and qualify for legal aid. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as everyone will understand, this reform will bring about a substantial expansion in the number of people eligible for aid. It is nothing less than a reinforcement of the Welfare State. In this Government’s opinion, it is obviously an acceptable price to pay for justice to be fair. Of course, this exercise of scrutinising the finances will be monitored by the Courts to prevent any false or exaggerated declarations of expenses. But we will prefer here to err on the side of generosity, which is why there is no list of what type of expenses are allowed. The reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that experiences taught my colleagues and me at the Bar that almost no one who can easily afford to pay for their own lawyer, will instead choose a court-appointed one instead, not when their legal rights or their freedom is at stake. This is why we are confident that this new law will not open the floodgates to unmeritorious applications. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the spouse’s income will however not be counted in divorce or separation matters, which is only just and reasonable. The maximum value of assets to be eligible would also increase from Rs500,000 to Rs1 million, excluding as the law will have it, clothing, work tools, and the subject matter of the case. This again reflects the rising cost of living. The Bill also provides for a broader definition of “assets”, to include not just cash and bank deposits, but also investments with non-bank institutions, shares, bonds, stakes in companies etc… whether in Mauritius or abroad. Despite these stated thresholds, the Court is given a margin of discretion in cases where a person of low income may still own assets worth than Rs1 million because there can be times when, for instance, it would be unfair to ask someone of low means to sell an inherited plot of land just to defend a case against him, especially if that land is still “en in division”. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these are practical, sensible reforms. But they are also moral choices. We bring them not because they are popular. They do not provoke public interest, debate or outcry. The example is here for all to see, the Opposition have not even deemed it fit to intervene on this very important piece of legislation.

Shame!

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no electoral dividend in expanding legal aid. Which is probably why the previous Government, so keen on printing money to increase allowances it could not afford, did nothing to change the legal aid thresholds. No, we, on this side of this House, do not do this because it is popular, but because it is the right thing to do. The Bill further widens the scope of offences for which legal aid may be obtained. Currently, the offences for which a person may obtain legal aid are restricted, and some offences still listed in the current law, no longer even exist. A person will now obtain legal aid for any offence before any Court, save and except for those District Court offences that are not punishable by penal servitude. In other words, only the most minor criminal offenses are excluded from this scheme. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, access to justice begins not in court, but at the police station. That is where this Bill goes further than any of its predecessors. Legal Assistance, as opposed to legal aid, which is the right to be advised and represented during police enquiry or bail hearings, has until now been available only for a narrow list of serious offences. The new Bill removes that restriction. Legal assistance will now be available for any offence that may lead to an arrest. Moreover, police officers will be under a legal duty to inform any person under arrest, in a language they understand, of their right to legal assistance, particularly before any statement is taken under warning. This aligns our legal framework with the best traditions of due process and protects both the rights of the accused and the integrity of our criminal justice system. These changes will also benefit the legal profession and the administration of justice more broadly. By widening the base of legal aid recipients, the Bill ensures a more diverse flow of cases for Court-appointed counsel. This is particularly valuable for the younger members of the Bar. As many hon. Members will know, there is a growing number of junior barristers who struggle to gain meaningful court experience. Legal aid cases – be they in family, civil or criminal matters – offer real exposure and real responsibility. Barristers and attorneys assigned under the scheme are required to accept such briefs, unless disqualified by conflict of interest or manifest lack of competence and expertise. They may not claim or receive any sum from the recipient of legal aid but they are paid a modest fee by the Court. For instance, an attorney and a barrister receive Rs10,000 each for a case entered by way of plaint with summons before the Supreme Court, Rs8,000 for Intermediate Court and Industrial Court cases and Rs5,000 for a District Court matter. A barrister appointed for a bail hearing or for assistance at the Police Station is paid Rs5,000 and only Rs15,000 for representing a client at the Assizes. The relationship is governed by professional duty, not market transaction. This is why the practice of law is not a business. And that is why we are not traders and this Bill ensures that it remains so. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to walk the hon. Members today, briefly through the structure of the Bill – • Part I – Preliminary (Clauses 1 to 3) That part sets out the short title, definitions, and scope of application. It clarifies, for example, that the Act does not apply to disciplinary proceedings, and limits its application in certain minor criminal cases. • Part II – Legal Aid in Civil and Criminal Proceedings (Clauses 4 to 9) That part establishes the right to legal aid and sets out the eligibility criteria: a monthly household income below Rs25,000 and assets below Rs1 million. It outlines the application procedure, permits legal aid in criminal appeals, and grants special protection to juveniles, ensuring they, the juveniles, are automatically eligible regardless of their means. • Part III – Legal Assistance during Police Enquiry and Bail Applications (Clauses 10 to 14) This section enshrines the right to legal assistance upon arrest and for bail applications. It sets out the application process before the District Court and guarantees protection for juveniles, including where no parent or guardian is available to act on their behalf. • Part IV – Assignment of Counsel and Fees (Clauses 15 and 16) Here, the Court is empowered to assign a barrister or attorney. Lawyers must not request or receive any remuneration from clients under legal aid. The costs awarded in such cases accrue to the State, and any abuse of the scheme may lead to penalties. • Part V – Miscellaneous Provisions (Clauses 17 to 22) This final part, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir provides for exemptions from court-related fees, empowers the Chief Justice to make rules for the purposes of this Act and for my Office to amend the Schedule by regulations, and includes, of course, transitional arrangements. The Act will come into force by Proclamation, with the possibility of staggered implementation. • The Schedule sets out a standardised form of affidavit to be used for applications under both Legal Aid and Legal Assistance, streamlining the process and improving transparency. This Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, will therefore improve the lives of many who find themselves at their most vulnerable, before a magistrate, or a police officer, or in the quiet loneliness of legal proceedings they cannot afford. The measure of a legal system is not only how it treats the powerful; it is also how it treats the powerless. This Bill is a meaningful step in the right direction. Justice should be for everyone, regardless of their means. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this government has a mandate to better the life of the nation as a whole and part of this is precisely rendering access to justice easier. I therefore commend it to the House. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded.

Hon. Narsinghen, you have the floor for 15 minutes! (4.29 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr H. Narsinghen): M. le président, merci de me donner la parole. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I find on the list of orators – eight orators. This is a very important Bill and I think the Attorney General has rightly pointed out that this is not only a cosmetic amendment, not a cosmetic change; it is a fundamental change for the poor people and we, on this side of government, are in favour of the poor people and it is for the population to take note of this absence. As we are speaking about access to justice, I am sandwiched whether to intervene in English or French. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would have asked you the permission to speak in Creole but unfortunately, I know that you will not accede to my request.

I can’t grant it for the time being.

Then, I would prefer to intervene in the language of Molière because first and foremost, we are addressing the poor people. Donc, permettez-moi, M. le président, de commencer par une question essentielle à toute démocratie, et Maurice est une démocratie. Comment ce projet de loi actuel sur l’aide juridique et l’assistance garantit-t ’il véritablement le droit d’accès à la justice pour tous ? D’abord, je suis dans une démarche, je dirais, beaucoup plus pédagogique que technique comme l’Attorney General. J’essaie d’expliquer c’est quoi un état de droit et ce principe d’accès à la justice. Dans un état de droit, M. le président, la justice ne peut être un privilège réservé à ceux qui en ont les moyens. Elle est, d’abord, un droit fondamental, accessible à chaque citoyen, en particulier, aux plus vulnérables de cette société. Ce principe, sacrosaint, constitutionnel et international, est connu par les juristes en droit humain comme accès à la justice. Maintenant, c’est quoi au juste le principe d’accès à la justice ? C’est un principe fondamental dans un état de droit et dans une démocratie. En attendant la constitutionalisation formelle de ce principe, bientôt avec l’avènement d’une nouvelle Constitution j’espère bien, il existe déjà une façon implicite et je dirai supra- constitutionnelle dans notre Constitution. Quand le principe de la démocratie est bien inscrit et consacré, en anglais on dirait ‘entrenched’, ou pour être plus précis, je dirais sacralisé dans l’article 1 de la Constitution. Et, donc, il n’est nullement un principe philosophique ou politique. M. le président, d’après ce principe, l’état doit mettre en place des mécanismes, des lois, des institutions, des initiatives, des programmes conçus pour fournir des services juridiques à des gens qui pourraient avoir des difficultés à avoir des conseils et aussi avoir des représentations juridiques, comme bien précisé par l’Attorney General. Sans accès à la justice, les gens, surtout les pauvres et les démunies de cette société, ne peuvent aspirer à la justice, la vraie justice. Alors, la justice ne sera que pour les riches et les fortunés et serait très illusoire. L’état de droit, M. le président, et la démocratie, ne sont que des rhétoriques vidées de leurs sens. La loi actuelle est complètement dépassée et je dirai, ridicule. Pendant les décennies, la loi sur l’aide juridique de 73 bien qu’innovante à cette époque, est restée trop étroite, trop complexe et trop centralisée et souvent inadaptée aux besoins actuels. Elle a laissé, malheureusement, trop des citoyens à côté, en particulier, les plus pauvres. Et malheureusement, et là, je mets bien l’emphase sur ce point, malheureusement, l’ancien gouvernement n’a rien fait pendant dix ans, absolument rien. Tenez-vous bien, M. le président – dix ans ! Ils prétendent pourtant souvent, défendre les pauvres mais ils les bernent avec des rhétoriques creuses, malheureusement. Donc M. le président, aujourd’hui avec ce projet de loi, nous entamons une réforme ambitieuse et nécessaire. Ce texte donne à l’aide juridique une nouvelle dimension ; celle d’un doit humain concret au service de la justice, de l’égalité et la dignité comme bien souligné par l’Attorney General. Quels sont le point clés de cette réforme ? Permettez-moi de vous présenter les point clés de cette réforme, M. le président. D’abord, comme explique par le ministre de la Justice, on a augmenté le seuil, c’est-à- dire le plafond, dérisoire, je dirai, de R 10000 à R 25000. Et, comme bien expliqué, une personne peut avoir un salaire de revenu beaucoup plus de R 25000 et elle sera toujours qualifiée par ce seuil. On a aussi relevé le seuil patrimonial de R 500,000 à R 1 million. Certaines personnes, évidement, pourtant peut-être bien intentionnées, diront que ce n’est pas suffisant. Je concède, mais cependant, comme vous savez, on fait face à une situation économique catastrophique léguée par l’ancien régime et pour le moment, on ne peut pas faire mieux. J’espère d’ailleurs que dans trois ou quatre ans, avec une amélioration de la situation économique, on pourra augmenter ce seuil à R 30000 voir R 35000 et le seuil patrimonial à R 1.5 million. D’ailleurs, pour les cas d’appels, le magistrat ou le juge peut ignorer ce critère. Donc, on voit aussi, que le projet élargit considérablement le choix de l’aide juridique. Il ne se limite plus aux affaires pénales, il couvre désormais les droits de la famille, les conflits de travail, les violences domestiques. Donc, cela signifie que les femmes victimes de violences, des travailleurs précaires – on en a beaucoup à Maurice – les enfants en danger pourront enfin être défendus dans ce pays. Donc, il y a aussi une couverture élargie. Et, avec le nouveau projet de loi, il y aura une ouverture élargie des infractions pénales. La loi de 73 couvrait des délits punissables par servitude pénale, or que le nouveau projet de loi va couvrir des délits passibles d’arrestation. Donc, vous aller convenir avec moi que c’est une avancée considérable. On voit aussi, autre point très important – une décentralisation et une supervision de la cour. On est en train de créer une autorité de l’aide juridique, c’est-à-dire, il incombera à la cour de district ou à la cour d’appel ou une autre cour qui est décentralisée au niveau de chaque district. Maintenant, il n’y aura pas une simple unité administrative comme dans le passé pour la prise des décisions. Auparavant, le Legal Aid Unit était engorgé et c’était une unité administrative et certainement trop centralisée. Il y avait des retards conséquents. Donc, maintenant, avec un service décentralisé, il y aura certainement plus de rapidité pour traiter les cas. Cela garantie plus de professionnalisme, de rapidité et de transparence sous la responsabilité, sous la supervision d’un magistrat ou un juge. Troisièmement, ce nouveau projet de loi va simplifier les procédures ; fini les longs délais, les démarches complexes. Désormais, il n’y aura pas des délais et retards, j’espère. La procédure devient plus simple avec des formulaires simples à remplir qui sont inclus dans l’annexe. Cependant, je dois dire que l’Attorney General et le gouvernement ont fait leurs travails, mais il faut un personnel aussi adéquat et dévoué pour faire ce travail. Donc, on vient à une autre idée où il y a une sorte de révolution. Si le mot révolution est trop fort, je dirai du moins innovation. Le projet de loi impose un devoir légal, cette fois-ci, aux policiers et aussi aux tribunaux, d’informer toute personne arrêtée de son droit à l’aide juridique et aussi à l’assistance dans leur langue – c’est très important – et immédiatement. On reprend d’ailleurs certaines dispositions de la constitution similaires qui sont consacrées dans l’article 10 de la constitution pour les mettre dans une loi ordinaire à l’encontre d’une loi constitutionnelle. C’est cela l’accès à la justice, et non les rhétoriques creuses qui émanaient de l’ancien gouvernement. Qui en bénéficiera le plus ? Les pauvres, les oubliés, les enfants placés, les réfugiés, les personnes handicapées, certainement. Ceux qui jusqu’ici n’avaient pas les moyens de se défendre, M. le président, ne seront plus jamais seuls cette fois-ci face à la justice. Aussi, une emphase particulière a été mise sur les mineurs. La nouvelle loi protège les mineurs. Les critères d’éligibilité ne s’appliquent pas nécessairement. Ils vont bénéficier d’une aide presque, je dirai, automatique. Donc, ceux âgés de 14 à 18 ans auront, ce qu’on appelle, une protection renforcée. Dans un État démocratique, c’est très important. Même en absence des parents, les mineurs pourront bénéficier de l’aide juridique et de l’assistance. L’aide aux mineurs n’était pas automatique sous l’empire de l’ancienne loi. Aussi, pour qu’il n’y ait pas d’abus – d’ailleurs, l’Attorney General a bien mis de l’emphase sur ce point –, on a pris certaines précautions, en vertu de l’article 12 de ce projet de loi qui prévoit des sanctions plus sévères. Par exemple, il y a une amende de R 1 million et trois ans de prison pour des fausses informations. La loi est aussi plus stricte contre la définition des assets sous l’empire de ce nouveau projet de loi, ce qui est un point très important pour qu’il n’y ait pas d’abus par certaines personnes sans scrupules. Autre point que je remarque, M. le président, et honorables membres, ce projet de loi s’inspire également des meilleurs principes internationaux. Je vous invite à lire l’United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid, un document très important. Je pense que d’ailleurs, l’honorable Attorney General, votre bureau s’est inspiré de certains de ces principes. Maurice rejoint un mouvement mondial pour humaniser les droits. C’est très important d’humaniser les droits et de les mettre au service des démunis et des pauvres de notre société. Mais on ne doit pas dormir sur nos lauriers. Honorables membres, pourquoi ? Parce que l’essentiel reste à venir. Il faut mettre en œuvre cette loi. Elle doit être accompagnée par des moyens humains, surtout financiers et aussi institutionnels. Les policiers, les magistrats, les avocats doivent être formés. Le public doit être informé, point capital, je dirai, important. Les résultats doivent être suivis, évalués et aussi publiés. Le gouvernement et le ministre de la Justice ont certainement fait un travail remarquable. Je suis en train de conclure, M. le président.

Merci.

Il faut veiller à ce que la cour fasse son travail et veiller à ce que les avocats ou les avoués fassent aussi leur travail. Qui pourra évaluer si l’avocat désigné pro bono a bien fait son travail ? Ce n’est pas parce que c’est pro bono qu’il faut bâcler le travail, M. le président. Il faut aussi des règles qui émanent de l’autorité judiciaire pour sanctionner, je dirai bien, les quelques brebis galeuses de la profession légale. C’est beaucoup plus qu’une réforme. C’est un engagement démocratique. Ce gouvernement ne se sert pas seulement des rhétoriques sans agir. Engageons-nous pleinement, honorables membres, pour faire vivre cette loi. Faisons en sorte qu’à Maurice, la justice ne soit ni un privilège, ni une marché, mais qu’un droit réel est garanti pour toutes et tous. Il faut, avec le temps, faire disparaître la pratique de droit à deux vitesses ou du moins cette perception du droit à deux vitesses. Personne n’est au-dessus de la loi. Même pas, d’ailleurs, les magistrats, les juges et les employés dans le judiciaire. Ensemble avec eux, on doit éradiquer cette réalité décriée ou du moins cette perception. Ce gouvernement, avec une série de législations récentes, prouve qu’il va au-delà des rhétoriques creuses comme l’ancien gouvernement, malheureusement, qui se tient avec honneur dans le camp des démunis de ce présent gouvernement. Un gouvernement socialiste – oui, socialiste, je dirai, modéré, mais aussi responsable. On peut être un grand socialiste, mais responsable. Les deux leaders de cette alliance croient dans la consolidation de notre démocratie et les élus de cette alliance y croient aussi. Merci pour votre attention, M. le président.

Thank you. Hon. Seeburn! (4.44 p.m.) Mr M. Seeburn (Second Member for Vieux Grand Port & Rose Belle): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Today, I rise to support the introduction of the proposed Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill. This Bill is an initiative that reflects the strong political will and commitment of our Government to strengthen the rule of law. This Bill upholds one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy, our Constitution and our shared values as Mauritians. By modernising our legal aid system, the Bill has demonstrated a deep awareness of the everyday struggles faced by our citizens, particularly those who have long been left behind due to financial constraints. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, access to justice is a right. A right that is enriched in our Constitution, but that right remains out of reach for too many citizens of our country today. Too many people from vulnerable groups, low-income households from different walks of life are effectively denied access to justice simply because they cannot afford legal representation. In both civil and criminal matters, these people face the court alone, often confused and disadvantaged. This is not justice. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the former Chief Justice Lord David Neuberger of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and also the President of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has repeatedly emphasised that access to justice is a corner stone of the rule of law. He warned that lack of legal aid funding with rising court fees and complex procedures risk is turning justice into a privilege for the wealthy rather than a right for all. He argued that justice must be affordable. Justice must be available to everyone, regardless of income. Government has a duty, not only to create the laws, but to ensure that ordinary people can afford their rights. He went on to say that without meaningful access to the courts, the rule of law is weakened and the public confidence in justice is undermined. In short, Chief Justice Lord David Neuberger emphasised that access to justice is essential for the functioning of a democracy and for fairness in any modern society. He said that legal aid is the glue that holds the rule of law together. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mauritius, judges, legal professionals, the Bar Association and the civil society have repeatedly, over the years, raised concerns over the limitations of the current legal aid system with insufficient remuneration to the current legal aid, with insufficient remuneration for legal aid lawyers, and their narrow scope of eligibility. But what did the previous government do? As the hon. Attorney General said earlier, nothing. They ignored the calls, they ignored the people, they ignored their duty. During all that time, too many citizens were denied legal representation simply because they could not afford it. Too many cases were delayed or abandoned by persons from vulnerable groups. Women stayed in abusive relationships. Too many children suffered in custody disputes and too many elderly and other citizens were left without recourse to justice. That is not neglect. That is injustice. Here, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the previous MSM government had a duty to ensure equal access to justice. But unfortunately, they failed to address the issues during the past ten years in power. Justice has been delayed. As the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, William Gladstone, said – “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our hon. Attorney General was right in his public address to describe the justice system in Mauritius as ‘slow, intimidating and out of reach’, and in affirming his commitment to infrastructure upgrades, digital tools, expanding courts capacity, and reform in legal aid laws. Today, he rightly said that this Bill occupies a special place in his four decades of practice. Unlike the previous government, we are taking immediate steps to make legal aid fair, functional and accessible. By introducing this Bill, we are widening the scope of eligibility to the people of Mauritius. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill is a modern legislation that seeks to reform and revitalise our legal aid system which has served our people for decades but is now, more than ever, in urgent need of review to meet the realities of today. It has an objective to make legal aid and legal assistance accessible to all those who cannot afford legal representation in civil criminal proceedings before any court of law by widening the range of offences and increasing the ceiling of monthly earnings. Section 4 of the Bill imposes an obligation on the court to inform a person of his rights to legal aid before the start of proceedings to which that person is a party. The Bill also provides a right to legal assistance under section 10 and imposes an obligation on a Police Officer who is in charge of a Police Station to inform a suspect, upon arrest, that he may make an application for legal assistance during the recording of a statement under warning, and also, for bail application. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill affirms the idea that justice should never be reserved for a few but be made accessible to everyone. Section 8 of the Bill empowers the court to grant legal aid to all applicants who meet the criteria under section 5 of the Act. It further empowers the court with a discretionary power to grant legal aid to the applicants even if their assets exceed Rs1 million after having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice. In fact, the Bill proposes a modern, fair legal aid system that will qualify more low- income individuals for free legal assistance in criminal and civil matters and make sure that the system is transparent and efficient. Section 9 and section 14 of the Bill ensures that legal aid and legal assistance are available to juveniles through their parents, legal guardians or other persons. It further ensures that if no one is available to represent the juvenile, the court will go ahead to grant the legal aid. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill provides that upon application through sworn affidavit, it is the court that shall assign a barrister or an attorney or both. Barristers and attorneys who have been assigned shall not refuse assistance without furnishing good reasons to Chief Justice and payment will be done to the lawyers from the Consolidated Fund as specified in section 15 of the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to make the system more effective, the Bill further provides that if there is an award for costs in favour of the applicant who was granted legal aid, then the said award for cost shall be deemed to be in favour of the government unless specified otherwise and shall be recovered by the Attorney General and deposited in the Consolidated Fund as stated in section 16 of the Act. The Bill further makes provision under section 17 to exempt those who were granted legal aid from payment of stamp duty, registration dues, usher fees, witnesses fees and court fees. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill gives a wide range of powers to the Chief Justice to act independently and make such rules as he or she thinks fit for purpose of the Act. In fact, the Bill demonstrates a thoughtful balance between legal expertise and social responsibility and a clear sign that our legal institutions are evolving to meet the real needs of our people. This effort is to modernise and expand legal aid and to make it more inclusive and accessible. This is a significant milestone in the pursuit of a more just and equitable society. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Rosalie Abella, a puisne judge from the Supreme Court of Canada says that there is no justice without access, it is as simple and as complex as that. And goes on to state that access to justice is the most basic human right and without it other rights are meaningless. Justice must be accessible in practice not just in principle. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are building a justice system that treats everyone with dignity, with fairness, no matter how low the income or background is. In Mauritius, the law says that everyone is equal before the law but in real life we know that not everyone has the same ability to access justice. Many Mauritians cannot afford a lawyer; many Mauritians do not know their rights. Others do not know the complex procedures of the court. This means that for many Mauritians going to court whether for a family matter, a land dispute or a criminal charge is frightening, expensive and sometimes impossible. This Bill is about changing that and reinforcing that right. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, legal aid is an investment in the strength and credibility of our justice system. Countries around the world have shown that where legal aid is accessible and efficient, wrongful convictions are decreased, public trust in institutions rises, as such it is a vital part of any democratic society to ensure that everyone has access to a fair and effective justice system not in theory but in reality. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to show my appreciation and thanks to the hon. Attorney General and his dedicated State Law Office team for their outstanding work, for coming up with this modern and progressive piece of legislation that reflects not only a deep understanding of the legal challenges faced by the vulnerable communities in Mauritius but also a firm commitment of upholding the principles of fairness, access and justice for all. This Bill is a commitment to the people we have been elected to serve. It is a Bill that prides itself on the equality, dignity and social justice. We must ensure that access to justice is for everyone. Let this Parliament be remembered for restoring the people’s faith in justice and see this Bill as a declaration of our shared humanity and commitment on equity. We must work together, the government, the civil society, legal professionals and citizens to ensure that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done and felt in every corner of our society. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with these words, I commend the Bill to the House.

Thank you. I think it is the right time to suspend. I suspend the sitting for half an hour. At 4.55 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.32 p.m. with the Deputy Speaker in the Chair.

Please be seated! Hon. Ms Collet! Ms M. R. Collet (First Member for Rodrigues): Merci, M. le président. Donc, ce projet de loi s’inscrit dans le programme gouvernemental 2025-2029 intitulé ‘Bridging the Gap’, qui cherche à réduire les inégalités et à rendre la justice plus proche des gens. Vous vous souviendrez, M. le président, de ma question parlementaire de mars dernier, sur les mesures envisagées par ce gouvernement pour garantir l’accès à la justice pour les citoyens vulnérables de notre république. D’ailleurs, la Judiciary Newsletter de mars de cette année contient un article consacré à ce sujet qu’est le legal aid and legal assistance. D’emblée, je tiens à remercier l’Attorney General et son bureau, ainsi que le gouvernement pour cette initiative responsable et utile compte tenu des réalités économiques que notre peuple fait face en ce moment. C’est une réforme importante, attendue depuis longtemps qui va permettre à plus de citoyens d’avoir accès à un homme de loi et une représentation légale adéquate, à être défendus peu importe leur situation financière. Au risque de répéter ce que mes collègues ont déjà mentionné, je tiens néanmoins à exprimer mon plein accord avec les points qu’ils ont soulevés. Ce projet de loi vise trois grands objectifs. En premier lieu, ce projet de loi vise à mettre à jour une loi qui date de 1973, avec des critères qui ont plus d’une cinquantaine d’années, une loi révisée pour la dernière fois en 2012. En second lieu, ce projet de loi vise à faciliter l’accès à une justice équitable pour les familles modestes compte tenu de la cherté de la vie et des changements de notre société et l’éloignement de Rodrigues de la capitale judiciaire qu’est Port Louis, là où se concentre la majorité des hommes de loi, ainsi que le palais de justice. En troisième lieu, M. le président, ce projet de loi vise à renforcer les droits des citoyens dès le début des procédures judiciaires avec des premières étapes qui s’avèrent souvent complexes et techniques et décisives pour les procès. Comme l’a fait ressortir l’Attorney General, ainsi que mes collègues l’honorable Narsinghen et l’honorable Seeburn, les conditions pour obtenir l’aide légale ont été élargies. Les seuils d’éligibilité ont été ajustés de manière raisonnable dans le but de facilité le recours à la justice pour un plus grand nombre de citoyens aux frais de l’Etat. Désormais, les biens pris en compte incluent les maisons, voitures, compte en banque, cryptomonnaie et parts dans les entreprises. M. le président, au sein de notre république, toute personne accusée a le droit d’être défendue. C’est un droit inscrit dans notre loi suprême, la Constitution, mais ce droit doit être réel, tangible. Avec cette loi d’actualité, ce gouvernement s’engage à rendre le droit d’être défendu accessible à tous, même pendant une enquête policière ou une demande de caution. Les mineurs entre 14 et 18 ans recevront automatiquement de l’aide, même sans devoir passer par leurs parents. Pour la continuité, M. le président, ce projet de loi donne au chef juge les moyens de créer des règles adaptées pour bien faire fonctionner le système les règles existant sous la loi de 1973 ayant été révisées il y a cinq ans de cela, et ceci dans un souci d’encourager les hommes de loi – attorneys, barristers – à s’engager et à offrir leurs services in forma pauperis. J’ai pris note qu’à Rodrigues, les professionnels qui se déplacent pour offrir des services in forma pauperis jouent un rôle essentiel dans la garantie de l’accès à la justice pour les plus démunis. Il est donc crucial de prévoir des solutions logistiques adaptées, l’hébergement adéquat, afin de soutenir l’engagement de ces hommes de loi sur le terrain. Et les policiers, les magistrats, les juges et les hommes de loi devront informer les potentiels bénéficiaires dans une langue qu’ils comprennent. Bien évidemment, à Rodrigues, c’est le créole. À Rodrigues, beaucoup de gens ne savent pas encore qu’ils ont droit à cette aide juridique ou ils n’osent pas demander de l’aide juridique. Ce projet de loi vient répondre à cette réalité, M. le président. Cette aide légale va couvrir non seulement les affaires civiles comme les problèmes familiaux, les litiges de terrains, mais aussi des affaires pénales, zafair lapolis, comme on dit souvent dans le jargon. M. le président, ce gouvernement veut alléger les charges financières de nos concitoyens en supprimant certains frais de justice, ce qui va vraiment soulager les familles modestes. Ce projet est là pour aider – • un conjoint délaissé qui veut se défaire d’une union civile qui ne fonctionne et qui ne fonctionnera jamais ; • un père ou une mère démuni(e) qui veut avoir accès à son enfant ; • un jeune accusé à tort, entre autres, qui mérite un avenir prospère. Il pourra avoir de l’assistance légale pendant l’enquête judiciaire ainsi que de l’aide légale pour être libéré sous caution. Mais pour que tout cela fonctionne, M. le président, chacun doit faire sa part. Nous avons tous notre rôle à jouer. J’apprécie que les professionnels du droit, les officiers de justice, les magistrats et les policiers auront un rôle crucial. Qu’ils soient et restent les gardiens de l’équité. Qu’ils soient flexibles, justes et humains. M. le président, les citoyens doivent aussi savoir que l’aide juridique est non seulement un droit, mais aussi une responsabilité. Il faut coopérer, faire une application, être honnête et respecter les procédures. Cette réforme était non seulement nécessaire, mais urgente. Connaître le véritable bien de la communauté, c’est ce qui constitue la science de la législation. « L’art consiste à trouver les moyens de le réaliser (…). » Je crois en cette philosophie de Jeremy Bentham, M. le président. Comme Bentham, que je viens de citer, je pense que cette loi doit servir le bien commun. Et ce projet de loi va dans ce sens. Avec ce texte de loi, nous rendons la justice plus proche, plus accessible et plus juste. J’invite, donc, mes collègues à soutenir ce projet avec responsabilité et engagement. Ensemble, construisons une justice qui sert tout le monde. Sur ce, je soumets ce projet de loi à l’examen de cette Assemblée. Merci beaucoup.

Merci. Hon. Dr. Prayag! (5.47 p.m.) Dr. S. Prayag (First Member for Piton & Rivière du Rempart): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, distinguished Members of the House, I wish to thank you for giving me the privilege to address this august Assembly on this important legislation, that is, the Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill. As a doctor who has witnessed the human consequences of delayed or denied justice, I rise to address the proposed repeal and replacement of the Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Act at a time that lies at an intersection, an intersection of human rights, fairness and dignity, as rightly pointed by the hon. Attorney General. Please, allow me to be clear, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Today, legal is not an easily accessible privilege, and it has not been one for the last decade. Due to the devaluation of our rupee together with the previous eligibility criteria, many are those who did not know on which door to knock when they suddenly had to face legal charges and get legal counsel overnight. The new threshold of not exceeding Rs25,000 and define assets value not exceeding Rs1 million makes legal aid accessible again to the needy. I congratulate the hon. Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney General for this endeavour. The old law had made almost all relevant provisions, but in practice, it was not applied as it should. The new law should make provisions so as it does not remain an academic legislation without any real impact on access to justice. This new reenacted Bill has an objective – • to make it more accessible for persons with low income, and • those who cannot afford legal representation: to have access to justice in civil and criminal proceedings before any court in Mauritius. This legislation will ensure that justice does not remain in the domain of the wealthy, but becomes a lived reality for all Mauritians regardless of income. I am not a barrister and I humbly stand to be corrected by fellow learned members of the legal profession. Yet, the truth is our current system pertaining to legal aid and legal assistance is falling behind. Let us agree that one of the key issues today is the bureaucratic and outdated process. Les dossiers traînent, les retards s’accumulent et la frustration s’installe. Ces délais découragent beaucoup de personnes d’exercer leur droit à l’aide juridique. Quelques fois, les gens se perdent littéralement dans le système à cause de cette lourdeur bureaucratique. M. le président, time is justice, delay is denial. Whilst reflecting about the process, I also feel the necessity to highlight the need for digitalisation and streamlining of the legal aid application process. Let us not be the architects of that old system, where divorce through private counsel takes two to three months today, while through legal aid, it drags for a year. I, somehow, now feel that Clause 6 of this new Bill, more specifically Clause 6 (2) (b), must be clearly defined by a prescribed time limit so as not to delay justice. In addition, for such a legislation to work, I find it essential that Police Officers, especially those of senior rank, be empowered and trained to conduct real-time means testing and merits testing, particularly during weekends or after hours when courts are closed. We cannot allow someone to be detained overnight simply because no one was present to assess his or her eligibility. As a comparison, I wish to refer the House to the current UK procedure, where a duty solicitor is on call, readily available to represent an accused at any time of the day or night, subject to eligibility. Unfortunately, under the draft before, the burden was being placed on the accused to prove their eligibility via an affidavit sworn before a District Court. But what if someone is arrested at 8.00 p.m. on a Saturday night? The court is closed at that time and an affidavit cannot be sworn. Then, what happens? Does this mean the person remains in detention without a voice? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is neither fair nor just. If we are reforming this law, we must build clarity, accessibility and fairness into its procedures. As we are aware, it is already the practice in Mauritius for a Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent of Police to remain on duty after office hours in every Police Division across the island. I shall propose that this designated officer is given proper training in legal aid screening and be empowered to receive a sworn statement of proof on eligibility. In the past, in Mauritius, I can recall that a Superintendent of Police had the legal power to grant bail. I hereby wish to mention that it is both reasonable and practical that such officers be entrusted with initial decisions on legal assistance as well. This measure would immediately bring fairness into the room. It is hereby time to see the practicalities of such a legislation. This new legislation will work, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The previous Act did not impose an obligation on the statement-recording Police Officer to inform the person that he may make an application for legal assistance during the recording of the statement. However, I still personally don’t find it sufficient. We need to correct the mischief. The mischief of the law enforcing officer to escape the imposition of such an obligation of him or her. The same mischief – the hon. Attorney-General will agree with me – that has unfortunately been played for years and years. It is to my opinion that the information of access to legal aid must be imperatively added as part of the official police caution. To make my point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I need to say that the right to legal representation is not merely theoretical, it must be stated clearly and immediately upon arrest; this is the norm in some jurisdictions, for example: the United States of America. It goes without saying that police abuse will decrease by imposing on the law enforcing officers to inform the accused of the right to legal aid upon caution. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when police officers know that detainees are aware of their rights, they tend to be more diligent in the delivery of their duties, and especially, when those rights are actually exercisable. We must also take practical steps to ensure public awareness. I propose that clear notices on legal aid rights be affixed in all police stations, in all court houses, even in all Citizen Advice Bureau, and that also, in English, French as well as Creole. Many Mauritians still do not know what they are entitled to. This simple visible step can change lives. Another significant point is that prompt payment to Attorneys and Counsels is vital. If we expect them to take up sensitive cases, including those of rape, drugs, assault, eviction, often on short notice, we must honour them with timely payment otherwise participation in the system will dwindle and we will be left with an empty shell of law. To me, this is a clear way to increasing the true value of the service and I believe it is a matter that mandates urgent action. As the law is being repealed and replaced, the new Act should clearly list the types of cases eligible. I have been informed that in practice legal aid currently covers property related matters, evictions, family law matters, and criminal cases as well as appellant cases across the various courts in our jurisdiction but this should not be left to guess work, clarity brings confidence, that is why I would request your permission, and take a moment here to brush a picture of victims of medical negligence. As founder and President of the Medical Protection Society of Mauritius, I have witnessed cases where patients suffer in silence, lacking both voice and recourse. Yes, in addition to extending legal aid to more women by, for example: partage post-divorce and licitation, we have had debates on this matter these few weeks. Legal aid must recognise and respond to the needs of those who have suffered due to medical malpractice and negligence. This is a category of litigation that is growing; we cannot leave these victims behind. Medical negligence cases are often complexed, emotionally charged and financially crippling. The very individual who suffers from misdiagnosis, surgical errors or systemic failures in our healthcare institutions, are the least likely to afford quality legal representation. Are we, as law makers, prepared to tell them that justice is a privilege that they cannot afford? Take for instance the case of a young mother from a modest background who lost her newborn due to a delayed emergency caesarean section, an avoidable tragedy, later confirmed by a medical review. Devastated, she was determined to seek accountability but without the means to hire a lawyer, she was left without being able to afford a legal recourse. My personal assessment is that such legislation, if properly applied, can bring more confidence to the person approaching the court. The delay of two years to pursue government institutions according to the Public Officers Act, makes it difficult for low income-earners to find money during this period of time, hence, making it impossible to seek justice and repair. As a Doctor, I can assure the House that such measures will bring more diligence in the noble work of medical and paramedical personnel and ultimately, better care in our health care institutions. On ne peut plus accepter de continuer à voir les victimes dépourvues ou laissées pour compte. J’ai témoigné à maintes occasions des victimes finissant par accepter toute sorte de remède à la fin. Before drawing my conclusion, I wish to state that if this Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Act, were to be embedded under a main overarching framework, such as the model of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in the United Kingdom as announced on several occasions by the hon. Prime Minister, it would carry more structural authority and legal weight. Housing this legislation under a primary Act that governs procedural fairness and rights, during arrest and investigation, would ensure greater coherence, consistency and enforceability across all related processes. It would also reflect our seriousness in placing access to justice at the core of our criminal justice system. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us be clear-eyed, this is just not a legal document we are debating, it is a gateway to justice for the voiceless. We must ensure that access to justice is practical, prompt and protective. This new Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Act must be bold enough to correct the mischiefs of the past, compassionate enough to understand the realities of the present and wise enough to future proof the rights of generations to come. Justice delayed is justice denied, but justice denied because of poverty is injustice institutionalised. Let us all not allow that to happen. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I must commend this Bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you. Hon. Lobine! (5.55 p.m.) Mr K. Lobine (First Member for La Caverne & Phoenix): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Let me first of all, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank the hon. Attorney-General for bringing this Bill to the House. It is clear that careful thinking has gone into the drafting of this legislation and I also thank the officers of the State Law Office for this very clear drafting with regards to this particular piece of legislation. The hon. Attorney-General spoke earlier on about consolidating the Welfare State. This is one aspect as to how this government is consolidating the Welfare State, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. And unfortunately, when we are debating such an important Bill, again, the other side, only three Members, all of them are absent. It is a very important piece of legislation, they are not participating but at least they should be here, present to show compassion as to the consolidation of the Welfare State because we are talking about accessibility to justice to the most vulnerable people of our society. So, again, history will judge those Members of the Opposition who are always absent and who are always not here to participate in debates with regard to this important piece of legislation, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Why legal aid matters, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir? It goes beyond words because it goes to the very foundation of our Constitution. Section 10 of our Constitution is the foundation that guarantees that one should not be denied access to justice because of lack of means and that every accused person must receive a fair trial including the right to legal representation when necessary to secure justice. This principle, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is at the heart of our legal aid framework. It ensures that access to justice is not just a privilege for the wealthy but a constitutional right for all Mauritians. Here, I would take the words of hon. Ms Collet when she rightly pointed out that we are bringing a new law after more than 50 years. The previous Legal Aid Act was in 1973. It was brought by the then Labour Government establishing and consolidating the Welfare State and it was amended again in 2012 under a Labour Government, again, to consolidate the Welfare State. And, this was again done Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after a report of Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Again in 1998, the then Labour-led government, we had a report from Lord Mackay, ‘Access to Justice, Reform to the Justice System and Legal Aid Reform. And those reforms were already mentioned, and it is as per those recommendations that in 2012, amendment was brought and the amendment expanded the scope from legal aid alone to include legal assistance. This was done in 2012, covering advice and support earlier in the process like police inquires and bail. This was a step forward for access to justice, especially, for juveniles but beyond that single reform, the system remined largely frozen, thresholds stayed outdated. There was no clear statutory duty to inform people of their rights. And, here, as rightly pointed out by hon. Dr. Prayag, there should be more clarity. But this particular piece of legislation, in this Bill, clarity is provided, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to Clause 4 – The Right to legal aid. Now, it is an obligation on our Court of justice to ensure, to tell anyone who is being accused or standing trial that before the start of the proceeding to which that person is a party, inform him in a language in which he is conversant that he may make an application for legal aid under this Act. This is now in the law. And it goes further, again, the right to legal assistance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at Clause 10 – it is also the duty of a police officer in charge of the police station to inform that person that he may make an application for legal assistance during police enquiry, including legal advice. So, this is also now being enacted; it will become a law. However, as pointed out by hon. Dr. Prayag, in practice, how will it work? How do we communicate? What is the timeframe that will be set up to look at all these applications? What about the status of the number of personnel that will be allocated in different courts of justice to process those applications? Whether those people who do not know the law or who are not able to access information as to whether they are eligible for legal aid? Who will go and inform these people? Here, hon. Dr. Prayag had mentioned that we should, in the court of justice or even in public places, have clear billboards informing people. This is done in the UK, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir – in the UK, people are informed and pamphlets are also given at the Court of Justice. What are your rights? What can you be doing? What you cannot do? So, for legal aid as well, I think there should be a campaign of dissemination to inform the public at large what they can do and what they cannot do and who are eligible. And again, with regard to the report of Lord Mackay, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the report spoke about the creation of an independent legal aid authority, creating an independent body responsible for administering legal aid, ensuring transparency, efficiency and impartiality. So, maybe when the hon. Attorney General will sum up, he might give us some indications whether in the near future, they would consider setting up a legal aid authority, as recommended by Lord Mackay and as also being opined by the Law Reform Commission, way back in 2011, whereby the Commission said – it is an Opinion Paper of the Law Reform Commission, in February 2011, I quote – “[The Commission is of the opinion] that the current legal aid system is certainly in need of reform [legal aid should include legal advice (and should not be restricted to legal representation) and a Legal Aid Board or Commission should be established].” In the current system, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, again, I am humbly voicing out my opinion because I have been speaking to various colleagues of the profession and I salute the legal profession, hundreds of attorneys and hundreds of counsels, barristers who are working in this system of the legal aid, who are giving pro-bono services. And, I salute their efforts because most of those barristers and attorneys are compassionate and they deliver against all public perceptions that they might have against the legal profession. Most barristers do no charge a single cent for most of the cases from government from the Legal Aid Unit. They do it pro bono, seriously and compassionately and they take the case as if it is their own case which has been paid by an independent person that would come and knock at the door. So, I salute the legal profession, I salute all attorneys and barristers who are working within the system. Again, however, there are certain issues that I wish to raise with regard to separation of powers, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. We are giving unfretted powers to the Chief Justice to determine fees to be paid to barristers and attorneys from the Consolidated Fund. Maybe, it is not the right time for us – we are consolidating democracy, whether is it not high time also to open the debates, whether the legal profession should be independent, not just in the sense of the word, ‘independent’ in the way we operate. The legal aid system should not be under the umbrella of the court and of the Chief Justice. There should be an independent legal aid authority – independent, impartial, that would look at all the procedures and put in place this very beautiful piece of legislation. So, I would invite the hon. Attorney General to consider same and also consider the timeframe as being proposed by the hon. Dr. Prayag at Clause 6 of this Bill – Application for legal aid. There should be a certain time limit to process because we know how it functions and we know the bureaucracy that it involves in those people looking where to go to search for legal aid and how their applications are being processed. So, theses are my contributions as to the debate on this particular piece of legislation which is a beautiful piece of legislation, which is also something that we should commend, especially … An hon Member: Beautiful!

These are the debates; we can’t have everything good in a piece of law. So, the strength of this new Bill is that it updates eligibility threshold. This is very important. It will touch the most vulnerable. It also gives the duty on courts and on the police officer to inform people. It is now mandatory; it is legal for them to inform people that they are eligible for legal aid. And, of course, it is also something that is very important that is being introduced – preserving the automatic protection for juveniles. This aligns us. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So, theses are my contribution to this piece of legislation and I shall certainly support this Bill and I invite the hon. Attorney General to consider the humble suggestion that I am making on behalf of the profession and also, with regard to this issue of separation of powers. Thank you.

Yes, hon. Minister Subron! (6.07 p.m.) The Minister of Social Integration, Social Security and National Solidarity (Mr A. Subron): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is with a sense of duty, as a Minister, as a member of the National Assembly and as a spokesperson of Rezistans ek Alternativ, that I speak in support of the Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill, presented by the hon. Attorney General. Sitting next to him in the National Assembly, I know that this Bill has been one his priorities since he took his seat in this House. On several occasions, he has shared his views with me on what amount would constitute a reasonable criterion for entitlement to legal aid. Even just a few days ago, we were still exchanging views on this matter. Well, this afternoon, this Bill is just minutes away from being adopted. I would like to place on record, my deep appreciation for the enlightened vision of the hon. Attorney General in bringing forward this amendment. Now, let me share my input on this debate. Let me begin with a fundamental question: what is justice? Justice, as we conceive it today, has evolved from long, often violent and unjust past. There was a time, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when justice was designed, administered by the powerful for the powerful. There was time where disputes were resolved through personal vengeance. A perceived wrong was met with a bullet or a rope. Reminiscence of the era of cowboys where shooting someone or hanging them in the town square was considered justice. This was the rule of the strongest. But society has since evolved. Modern justice has become institutional. It is the State and a genuine democracy that now assumes the responsibility for law and order. It is the State that ensures the application of justice through structured, independent legal systems. But even within this evolution, we must acknowledge a painful truth. We still live in a deeply class-based society. There are the rich. There are the poor. In this unequal society, justice often comes with a cost. One that many cannot afford. This cost becomes a barrier to equality, a denial of justice. In fact, for a significant proportion of our population, especially those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, justice remains inaccessible. In a patriarchal society, where relation between men and women are often unequal, this denial of justice becomes more pronounced. There is hidden exploitation, abuse and violence. Many women find themselves at the mercy of injustices without the financial means or institutional support to defend themselves. In these circumstances, access to justice becomes not merely a procedural right, but a fundamental human right. Access to justice is not just a principle. It is enshrined in international law. Mauritius is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which in, Articles 14(1) and 14 (3)(d), recognise the right to legal aid, especially in criminal cases. The Covenant insists that no person should be denied the right to a fair trial due to lack of resources. The right to defend oneself in a court of law is a cornerstone of justice. While Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR specifically guaranteed legal aid in criminal cases for those who lack the means to pay for legal representations, Article 14(1) establishes the broader principle that all persons are equal before the courts and tribunal. In essence, the right to justice cannot be the privilege of the wealthy. It is the right of every citizen. The Human Rights Committee has further clarified that legal aid should also be extended to civil and administrative cases, especially when fundamental rights are at stake. Victims of torture, victims of sexual violence and children are the groups for who whom access to justice must be guaranteed. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us look at the broader picture. In a class-based society, access to justice is not distributed equally. Those with the means can afford the best lawyer. Some of them are found in this House! They know the system, and they can navigate it. But what about the poor, the working people, the ordinary citizens? What of the vulnerable? Often, they do not even know their rights. They are intimidated by the complexity of the legal system. They lack legal literacy. They cannot afford legal representation and they are left voiceless. Let us not mince our words. The justice system across the world, as it currently operates, is often biased in favour of the powerful. There are systemic biases. People of the disadvantaged backgrounds face harsher penalties, less favourable outcomes and delayed justice. This is not justice. This is a structural violence. Access to justice, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, means more often than just the ability to set into a court room. It means having the knowledge, the support and the representation needed to assert one’s rights. It means able to understand legal procedures. It means having the legal assistance to pursue a legal case. It means not being excluded of poverty, language or social status. If we fail to provide this, the consequences are dire. We will reinforce inequality, we will erode public trust in the legal system, and we will invite social unrest and instability. To address this, it is important that we support legal aid and pro bono services. We should work to increase legal literacy and consider reforms to the legal system itself. Investigating in alternative dispute resolution is also essential. Ultimately, we need to create a system that works for everyone, not only for those can afford it. The Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill, by the hon. Attorney General, must be situated in this broader context of full access to justice. This amendment to enlarge access to justice for our people forms part of a broader democratic process. Change process is underway under this Government. Let us now turn to the specific context of Mauritius. Mauritius has a unique history. A history shaped by slavery, by indentured labour, by colonial denial of justice to the majority of those who toiled for this country. The right to justice was intrinsically linked to our social and political emancipation. With independence, we enshrined civil and political rights in our Constitution. Though immense progress has been achieved since then, we are a society that remains unjust towards the lower classes and towards women. Legal assistance in practice has been costly. It has been reserved for an elite. Though our Constitution and law recognise the rights of citizens to legal assistance, the threshold has long been set to a mere Rs10,000. This threshold has excluded many. In practice, justice remained inaccessible for too many Mauritians. The Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill before us today aims to address these deep- rooted injustices. Its object is clear: to repeal the existing legislation and to introduce a modern framework that makes legal aid accessible to persons with low income who cannot afford legal representation. The Bill does several important things, which has been underlined by my colleagues. It increases the income threshold from Rs10,000 to Rs20,000 on the methodology proposed and described by the hon. Attorney General. It expands the list of offences for which legal aid is available. It imposes new obligations on courts and Police Officers to inform citizens of their right to legal aid in a language they understand. It addresses existing shortcomings and corrects longstanding anomalies. For instance, under the new framework, if a woman applies for legal aid, her application will no longer be evaluated based on the family’s total income. The husband income will no longer count against her. This is a major step towards injustice for women, particularly in cases of domestic violence and matrimonial disputes. We must emphasise this point: the overwhelming majority of legal aid applications today concern matrimonial matters. Women seeking divorce, custody, protection from abuse, need the support of the State. The Bill answers that need. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me give some real-life realities. What would have happened to someone from the lower rank of society, poor, without legal connection if they were falsely accused, if they were victim of planting by the police under the previous regime? Let us remember my friend B. L., what would have happened to him without legal assistance, without being assisted by my colleague, hon. Shakeel Mohamed? Or what would have happened to A. B., would he have survived the system if he had been poor and unable to defend himself? What about the woman who killed her abusive husband in self-defence after years of domestic violence? If she had no access to legal representation, would she have had a fair trial? Would justice have been served? How many young men have been victims of police brutality because they have no means to hire a lawyer? How many have died in police custody? And let us not forget the many everyday cases, the nearby disputes, the inheritance issues, the workplace conflicts where the poor are left defenceless against the wealthy simply because they cannot afford a lawyer. Let us look at the numbers, the statistics from 2020 to 2023 show the following – (i) On average during the four years in question, only one third of those who apply for legal aid were granted assistance; (ii) On average 92% of the application are for matrimonial cases; (iii) Though criminal cases are of prime importance for many citizens, application for legal aid related to criminal case was a tiny proportion of legal aid applied for. For the 4 years, 2020 to 2023, the proportion was 1.06 of the application of legal aid; (iv) The number of requests for legal aid assistance peaked in the year 2020 with 4,965 applications while in 2023, the number of applications dropped to 1,532. From 2022 to 2023, the expenditure on legal aid increased by 66.6%, from Rs1.7 million to Rs2.7 million. This shows that despite the low threshold, the growing demand and the State’s growing recognition of the importance of this service. The need is immense and the current system is not meeting it. Legal aid is not a luxury. It is not a charity. It is justice; it is one of the pillars of the sovereign and democratic State. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill is a step forward. It is a progressive measure, it is a necessary measure, it is a response to the to the cries of those who have waited too long, suffered too much and been ignored too often. Let us remember the fundamental truth, non-access to justice is justice denied. This Bill gives a voice to the voiceless. It brings hope to the hopeless, it tells every citizen rich or poor, men or women, that they are equal before the law. This is what justice looks like and with these words, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I commend this Bill to the House. (6.22 p.m.)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I was sharing with the hon. Deputy Prime Minister a few minutes ago the difficulty I find myself in is, after having listened to everyone on this very important piece of legislation and the excellent speech pronounced by the hon. Minister of Social Security and the others, I find myself with very less, because I do not want to repeat whatever they have said. However, just to pick up from where my honourable friend, the Minister of Social Security has left on. Everyone agrees that the whole idea of legal aid is indeed for the issue of access to justice to be resolved. I have had the opportunity of reading the past legislations back in the 70s and I have had the pleasure of reading some of the excellent presentations made by those who are no longer with us, for instance, hon. Ollivry and hon. d’Unienville in those days. The interesting thing is that everything my learned friends from the Bar have said here, including the Attorney General, and hon. Members have said, today, is exactly what they were saying back in the 70s. In other words, it is a fundamental right, that of having access to justice, that one should not curtail the access to justice, one should not put barriers to that access otherwise we would be defeating the purpose of access to justice. This is exactly what then hon. Guy Ollivry was saying in this House. I find it, as I say it again, interesting that now we are in 2025 and we are saying the same thing. So, somewhere, somehow, something has gone wrong. We have the habit in this Republic of ours of having beautifully written laws but we also have the bad habit of not being able to enforce laws. So, when I read our Constitution and our Constitution says, at the very start, and some people from the previous government failed to understand what exactly section 1 of the Constitution means – “Mauritius shall be a sovereign democratic State”. What is democracy? Democracy is not just the right to say something but democracy is wider than that and part of democracy is also the element of access to justice because if you do not give proper access to justice, democracy is stifled. You are killing democracy. When I go to section 10 of the Constitution, it is even more interesting because the framers of our Constitution – “Provisions to secure protection of law” at subsection (2)(c) – every person who is charge with a criminal offence – “(c) shall be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;” But I do not stop there and the Constitution does not stop there, it goes further, subsection 2(d) and this is where the subject of this debate, today, takes all is relevance because it finds its footing, its source, at section 10(2)(d) of the Constitution. It says every person who is charged with a criminal offence – “(d) shall be permitted to defend himself in person or, at his own expense, by a legal representative of his own choice or, where so prescribed, by a legal representative provided at the public expense;” So, the whole idea of providing someone a lawyer to represent someone in a court of law at the public expense is there in our Constitution. Why do I stress on that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir? It is because here, I speak to the nation and what I see in front of me, as other friends have reminded us, two empty chairs!

Three!

Oh yes, I say two because sometimes some people do not know where they stand and very often they try to sit on the fence, and as I have always said, be careful when you sit on the fence, it will hurt physically. So, we have those three empty spaces but not only are those seats empty and it is not the first time that the Opposition chooses not to be present. They choose not to be present but hear me out, they believe by their absence that they have nothing to contribute to this piece of legislation and what is this legislation talking about? It talks about providing help and we simplify it, those who cannot afford justice – for those who cannot open the doors to a court of law, to hire the lawyer next to their side, or a solicitor or an attorney – that we give them that possibility without any barriers. This is what the law is about. So, it addresses those who cannot afford it. In other words, the poor, those on low income, those who need our help, those who need our attention, those who need us to listen to what they are saying, and this is an example of how this Government is not only listening but through what the Attorney General and this Government has done, we have acted upon what we have heard. Not only listened but we have acted upon what we have heard, and this is the result of the action; this piece of legislation opening the doors to the Courts, to justice and not only leaving in our Constitution the simple theory that what the Constitution says; you shall be able to obtain at the expense of the public, the State a representative. But it does not leave it in our books, we turn it into reality. So, today, when I see those empty seats, what it says to me is that they are not interested. They are only interested in going out there and telling people ‘Well, this is what is being taken away from you’ but they are not interested, or they do not realise either out of incompetence or of sheer ignorance, choose it, left or right they lose. They are not even aware that this is such an important piece of legislation that we are here putting into practice what is in theory provided for in our Constitution. This is a shame, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. So, now I want people out there, through those words, through my words, through the words of all our friends in this Assembly who have chosen to be present, to look at what those empty seats mean; that for them, the people who want access to justice, they mean nothing to the Opposition that should have been here but have chosen to be absent. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have had an interesting read of a document entitled ‘In Mauritius, courts and police confront weakened public trust amid persistent perceptions of corruption.’ This is Afrobarometer which is of 06 September 2024. The first page of the document, I quote from it, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it says – “Afrobarometer’s latest survey in Mauritius sheds light on public perceptions of the judiciary and police. Findings show that a mere one-fifth of Mauritians view the rulings of judges and magistrates as completely free from political interference.” And who was in power then? The empty seats! They have run away – “Two-thirds of citizens suspect that at least some judges and magistrates are involved in corruption…” I am not saying it is true but this is the perception, a perception encouraged by a government whose representatives today, in the Opposition, have chosen to run away but it is encouraged by a government that did nothing for access to justice for ten years whilst they were in power. And what this study also shows, and it is interesting, the reading of the study, shows that people with low income are those who do not trust our justice system the most. That is interesting. People with low income are those that do not trust our justice system the most. In other words, when you do not open up the issue of accessibility to justice, when you do not come up with legislations of this nature, when you do not do such a marvellous job as the hon. Attorney General has done, that is when you encourage those who do not have enough money to pay a lawyer or pay a solicitor, you encourage those people not to have confidence in the judiciary. And what I find interesting at page 11 of this report which is dated 6 September 2024 and I join what hon. Lobine has stated, and it says here at page 11 – “(…) more than half (58%) of Mauritians say they are not aware of any legal aid services in their community…” This is serious. So, what is the point of having beautiful laws if you do not know that this is what you have access to? So, yes, I agree and I am sure that the hon. Attorney General has taken note and I am sure that those who will be responsible for the manning of the system will take note of what has been said. We have to let them know that they have access to this. We have to let them know that not only do they have access to this, we also have to let them know that not only we participated in the process of giving them access to it but there are certain people who chose not to participate. That also they have to know but I am not saying that we have to put it on a flyer but then again, they have to know. So, what I find most interesting and I would like here to quote a Judgement, that of A. S. Mamode v the Queen 1991, Mauritius reports page 223. In that Judgment it says – “The concept of fair trial guaranteed by section 10 of the Constitution implies fair and impartial enquiries into the allegations of accused parties, the more so when as in the present case the accused is detained pending his trial.” In other words, you cannot have a fair trial without a fair enquiry and how can you have a fair enquiry, subsequently a fair trial if the person who is suspected of having committed an offense, I use that as an example, if he does not have access to legal advice and legal assistance at the time that he is being questioned as a suspect, how can he benefit from any fair trial if he is not taken care of from the very start? So, that is why, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is always easy to read a piece of legislation. It is nice to be able to write it but then again to remove it from the Constitution, bring it into legislation and to give it life for it to mean something to people who need that assistance, this is the whole beauty of our system and that is why it is a beautiful piece of legislation. That is why I congratulate the hon. Attorney General and his officers and all those who have helped in the drafting of this piece of legislation. Let me say this, I know for a fact many of us are lawyers here. Every single person who is a lawyer in this House – I must say including myself – we do not wait. We have not waited for the legal aid system to function for us to represent people pro bono, including yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. We do it but I think it is important not only that we continue doing it – let me say en passant that I miss the fact that I do not do it nowadays – but that we continue doing it. But I think that it is good now that we have a structured system that is clearly a better system. Those are my words. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Thank you, hon. Minister. Hon. Attorney General! (6.36 p.m.)

I will certainly not start blowing my own trumpet by saying that it is beautiful Bill. I am glad to see the support of the House to this Bill which as I have said earlier, is one of the most important I have brought to this House to date. One must understand how the legal aid application or system works. It is a decentralised system, that is, at the Supreme Court you have a Legal Aid Unit which is headed by the Senior Puisne Judge, the number 2 of our justice system. Then at the Intermediate Court, the Industrial Court and District Courts, the presiding Magistrates of these Courts are the ones who actually deal with applications. They see these applications day in day out and I think we should trust this decentralised system for the time being in order to see how this Act will work in practice. There is no doubt that there will be a necessity to empower the legal aid units at all levels in order for them to be able to process these applications so that the system is not clogged by the number of applications which will inevitably go up. Let me reassure the House, the swift processing of applications will be a priority. The expeditious necessity for a quick decision, especially needed in criminal matters when a citizen needs advice whilst in detention or if his interrogation might lead to his arrest, this answers the question of the hon. Member of Rivière du Rempart regarding legal advice. This is covered, I must say, by the legal assistance proviso in Clause 10 (1) of the Bill. So, there will be a need to expedite matters, and, of course, to empower the legal aid units in all the court rooms. Now, I also agree that there is a need to have an overarching enactment in order to give more, how can I put it, “oomph” to this legislation. The long-awaited Police and Criminal Justice Bill is not just a dream, as some might think. It is real. There is a draft ready and it will be brought before this House within a few months, just like the National Crime Agency Bill. These pieces of legislation are important to this Government and they will be brought before this House very soon. In the meantime, we should continue to bring forward litigation that will clarify processes, rationalise them, and in so doing, increase access to justice. I take good note of the proposition to review the Public Officers Protection Act. Let me reassure the hon. Member that I am on the same wavelength as he is. From day one, it has been my aim, and I hope to be able to fulfil this goal, to actually shape the system so that every citizen of this land feels that he has or she has been taken care of and that he or she has not been left behind because of lack of means. As the Explanatory Memorandum to the Act states, it is a modern legislation with a view to making it more accessible for persons with low income and who cannot afford legal representation, to have access to justice in civil and criminal proceedings before any court. It imposes certain obligations on courts and Police Officers to inform citizens of their rights, and, as you have all stated, it clearly also addresses shortcomings in the law with regard to legal aid and legal assistance. With these words, I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (The Deputy Speaker in the Chair) THE LEGAL AID AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE BILL (No. XIII of 2025) The Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill (No. XIII of 2025) was considered and agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with the Deputy Speaker in the Chair, the Deputy Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Legal Aid and Legal Assistance Bill (No. XIII of 2025) was read the third time and passed.