Second Reading THE CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. X of 2025) & THE CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. XI of 2025) Order for Second Reading read. (4.25 p.m.) The Attorney General (Mr G. Glover): Thank you. Madam Speaker, I move that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill (No. X of 2025) and the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill (No. XI of 2025) be read together a second time. Madam Speaker, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill fulfils the commitment given by the State before the United Nations Committee against Torture. But above all, it upholds the democratic values which this Government wants to restore, strengthen and extend. The Bill seeks to repeal Section 7(2) of the Constitution, which currently allows punishments found in laws that were in force in 1964 – which punishments may now be considered inhuman or degrading – to remain constitutionally valid. Madam Speaker, in its Concluding Observations on the fourth periodic report of Mauritius, the United Nations Committee against Torture gave its concern at the lack of express provision in our law prohibiting torture in absolute terms. It recommended that no justification whatsoever should be allowed for acts of torture, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Convention against Torture. It also drew attention to the need for other laws, including Section 245 of the Criminal Code, to align with this absolute ban.

(Interruptions)

I am trying to replace my hon. friend, Mr Bhagwan here!

(Interruptions)

The Committee further emphasised, in its General Comment No. 2, that State Parties are obliged to take legislative and administrative action to reinforce the prohibition against torture, and to eliminate any legal obstacles to its eradication. Torture is the subject of a non- derogable prohibition. No State may invoke any circumstance, however exceptional, to justify it. At the fifth periodic review of Mauritius in April of this year, I, therefore, informed the Committee, on behalf of our Government, that Section 7(2) would be repealed. Today, Madam Speaker, barely a month later, we are giving effect to that promise. Yet another example of the commitment of this Government to leave no stone unturned to reach our ultimate goals! Madam Speaker, Section 7 of the Constitution is made up of two provisions. It bears necessity, here, to read them out in extenso. Section 7 (1) reads – “(1) No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other such treatment.” However, Section 7 (2), Madam Speaker, states that – “(2) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with this section to the extent that the law in question authorises the infliction of any description of punishment that was lawful in Mauritius on 11 March 1964.” Section 7 (2) thus creates a broad exception to the constitutional protection against inhuman treatment. It immunises from challenge any law that was in place before independence, even if that law authorises punishments that are unacceptable by today’s standards. Moreover, that same subsection (2) of Section 7 of the Constitution is often misunderstood as a transitional clause. But its effect is broader and more enduring. It allows such punishments to be re-enacted through new laws which will then remain immune from constitutional scrutiny, as long as they mirror what existed prior to independence – 1964. For example, corporal punishments such as flogging or whipping, long abolished in Mauritius, were once lawful under colonial rule. In countries like the Bahamas, such punishments were repealed and later reintroduced without being struck down, due to the existence of these “saving clauses of similar nature.” Madam Speaker, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has examined such “saving clauses” in several cases, such as – • Pinder v. R (in The Bahamas): where a similar clause allowed colonial punishments to be repealed and later reinstated; • Watson v. R (in Jamaica) and Philibert v. The State (in Mauritius): where colonial laws were given immunity from constitutional scrutiny, and • more recently, Reyes v. The Queen (in Belize): where, by contrast, the Belize Constitution made such laws transitional for only five years post-independence. Even then, the Privy Council held that where no time limit is set, the clause is not transitional and its effects endure indefinitely; but these clauses, Madam Speaker, were only introduced with the intention of ensuring legal certainty and to secure an orderly transfer of power from colonial regimes to independent ones. They were not meant to hinder democratic progress of nations decades after independence. Madam Speaker, the Courts’ task in fulfilling their role is to interpret the Constitution by ensuring that its construction adapts to changing times and that all local laws of the jurisdiction conform with the organic growth of the Constitution. This is the “living tree” doctrine, as described by the Privy Council in the very old case of Edwards v Attorney General of Canada. In that case, women were not considered to be persons under the definition of a local Act. However, the Privy Council stated that the term “persons” should be read broadly and preventing women to become members of the Senate in Canada was and I quote – “…a relic of days more barbarious than ours”. For the Privy Council, and we agree fully with that proposition – “…a Constitution should thus be capable of growth and expression within its natural limits.” Madam Speaker, section 7(2) remains on our law books. The risk persists that one-day Parliament could – not this one, of course – reintroduce archaic punishments and that such laws would then be shielded from constitutional challenge. We cannot, as a responsible government, allow that. This approach would prevent the interpretation of torture or inhuman or degrading punishment to ever evolve, similar to the definition of “persons” in Canada, under the “living tree” doctrine. It would be a Damocles sword hanging over our legal order. This view was in fact adopted by the Privy Council recently in the case of Jay Chandler v. The State (Trinidad and Tobago) 2022, where it was again emphasised that the existing laws could not be held unconstitutional but Parliaments were nudged to use a soft expression by the Judicial Committee to repeal and amend such laws. Repealing Section 7(2) of the Constitution therefore, Madam Speaker, is just not symbolic. It is necessary. I now turn to the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill, which accompanies this constitutional reform. This Bill revises two provisions: Section 245, which governs the use of force under lawful authority and Section 242 which excuses manslaughter upon discovering adultery. First, the repeal of Section 7(2) of the Constitution requires us to revise Section 245. Its existing language therefore no longer aligns with the updated constitutional standard. The new provision ensures that the use of force, including lethal force, remains legally justified but only under defined conditions, which are – a) the defence of persons or property; b) the lawful arrest or the prevention of an escape; c) the suppression of a riot, insurrection or mutiny, and d) the prevention of a criminal offence. This is consistent with international norms, with common law principles and with the doctrine of proportionality which is now implied in our section 7(1), soon to become section 7 simplicites of our Constitution. In other words, even in these justified circumstances listed in (a), (b), (c) and (d), force must be used reasonably and cannot amount to inhuman or degraded treatment or torture. Madam Speaker, let us now turn to section 242. Before I deal with it, let me read in French from the old Code Napoleon what that section says – « Le meurtre commis par l’époux sur son conjoint ainsi que sur le complice à l’instant où il les surprend en flagrant délit d’adultère est excusable » You would have noted that the excuse would only apply to the male and not to the female. That provision, as I said, inherited from article 324 of the old French Penal Code, provides that manslaughter committed by a person upon catching his spouse in the act of adultery is excusable. In effect, and as per French jurisprudence, only a man convicted under these circumstances would get a reduced sentence. France repealed that section in 1975. 50 years on, we are still at it here and having to debate this in Parliament but hopefully this will be a thing of the past in a couple of hours. Although Section 242 of the Criminal Code has not been applied in a Mauritian court, it remains on our books and it remains the law of our land. And that, in itself, presents a legal and a constitutional risk. It offers a blanket excuse for killing, based solely on emotional provocation. This excuse lacks any consideration of proportionality, intent, or judicial discretion. And, that is problematic for at least three reasons – • First, Madam Speaker, it is incompatible with our Constitution. Let us not forget Section 3 guarantees individual rights; section 16 prohibits discrimination. Section 242, in contrast, is at its core, rooted in unequal treatment where only male violent reaction is deemed excusable. No such provision exists to “excuse” a woman who would find herself in similar circumstances and kill her spouse. • Secondly, it contradicts the general framework of our criminal law, where the notion of provocation is already recognised and considered on a case-to-case basis by our Judges and Magistrates every day in Court. Section 242 therefore imposes a redundant and rigid rule that bypasses judicial assessment and discretion. • Thirdly, Madam Speaker, it is socially harmful. How can anyone look at our younger generations of this country and tell them that in our law, there is a provision that could “excuse’ feminicide? What message would we be sending to the country where domestic violence has been left unchecked for years? International bodies have echoed this, Madam Speaker. The United Nations Committee Against Torture in 2017 and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in 2018 have both urged a repeal of this section but nothing was done by the previous Government. Madam Speaker, I must stress that today’s reform is not being carried out merely to satisfy external recommendations. It is being done because the provision is out of place in our legal system and constitutional principles. Repealing Section 242 simply removes an aberration that should never have been preserved. Madam Speaker, these two Bills remove provisions that no longer belong in our constitutional order. They reflect our responsibility to update the law; not only and merely to preserve its letter, but to uphold its spirit. There are, of course, more sections of our law, including some in the Criminal Code, that must also be reviewed in the same spirit. For instance, we are presently working on a Bill to update and refine our legal arsenal on sexual offences and to better fulfil not only our international commitments, but also our moral obligations to the women, girls and boys of this country. For today is but one step of many more to come. Steps which will include the giant strides that the forthcoming Constitutional Review Commission is expected to make. And step by step, slowly but surely like this, Madam Speaker, we will cross our government’s bridge to the future. I commend both Bills to the House. Dr. Boolell rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

Maybe we can carry on with Hon. Leader of the Opposition, for the moment. Yes! (4.42 p.m.) The Leader of Opposition (Mr G. Lesjongard): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have listened with great care the intervention of the Attorney General. At the very outset, Madam Speaker, I wish to show support to the Attorney General and the Government for repealing, first, section 7 subsection (2) from our Constitution and repealing section 242 from our Criminal Code. Madam Speaker, Mauritius is a State Party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which we have acceded to on 09 December 1992. Additionally, Madam Speaker, we are also a State Party to the Optional Protocol to the CAT which was acceded on 21 June 2005. This means, Madam Speaker, that Mauritius is committed to preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment both domestically and internationally. Madam Speaker, as the House is aware, the National Preventive Mechanism Division was set up under the National Human Rights Commission in 2014 and since June 2015, the National Preventive Mechanism Division investigates complaints which are made by a detainee, and where the detainee so requests, investigates the complaint privately. Madam Speaker, torture under any circumstance is a despicable act and should not be tolerated in modern Mauritius. Moreover, it was high time, Madam Speaker, to settle the debate on manslaughter committed as a result of a spouse caught in the act of adultery. Madam Speaker, I also support modifications being brought to section 245 of the Criminal Code where it was stipulated that – “There is neither crime nor misdemeanour, where homicide, wounds or blows are ordered by law, and commanded by lawful authority.” This new section 245, Madam Speaker, now stipulates the following – “There is neither crime, nor misdemeanour, where homicide is, or wounds or blows are, committed as a result of the use, to such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably justifiable – (a) for the defence of any person from violence or for the defence of property; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny; or (d) in order to prevent the commission by that person of a criminal offence or if he dies as the result of a lawful act of war.” Madam Speaker, despite the repeals being done today there remain for me some grey areas. For instance, section 78 of the Criminal Code which criminalises the offence of ‘Torture by public official’ provides for a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a fine not exceeding Rs150,000. Hence, this is clearly, I believe, not consistent with Article 42 of the Convention in relation to the gravity of the offence. Madam Speaker, the second one is with regard to the absence of any provisions in our legislations prohibiting the use of any evidence obtained by torture and other cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment in accordance with Article 15 of the Convention. So, as long as there is no such prohibition of the use of evidence obtained by such treatments, the courts will admit such evidence secured by the police and adverse to a suspect’s case. Madam Speaker, there are also, I believe some practical and other challenges. First, a lack of awareness of the prohibition of torture and the contents of the Convention even though it has been acceded to. There is also the perception that investigating authorities continued to look for confessions by any means to resolve a criminal investigation, and see the lack or scarcity of other means to solve criminal cases such as use of scientific and technological means, and lastly, the reluctance to report cases. Now, I mentioned that earlier, Madam Speaker, I do not find any necessity to introduce the term ‘lawful act of war’ in our Criminal Code, especially at a time where we should be condemning all acts of war around the world. It is to be stressed that we are a peaceful country and should remain so and there should not be any justification such as an act of war that should be qualified as lawful, I believe, in our Criminal Code. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, I can understand that the relevant authorities should be allowed to act if there is a riot, an insurrection or a mutiny in our country. And, Madam Speaker, not only as the Leader of the Opposition, but also as a citizen of this country and a patriot, I do not wish to see, I make reference to that, another episode of Février 1999 happening again in our country. However, Madam Speaker, should this subsection (c) have existed back then, for example, would the death of Berger Agathe have been justified? Obviously, I am not a legal person but I hope the Attorney General provides some clarity on this aspect of the Bill. Now, coming to subsection (b), I do have some concerns, Madam Speaker with this part of the Bill. Firstly, may I ask what is a lawful arrest, nowadays? Firstly, may I ask what a ‘lawful arrest’ is nowadays? Is it an arrest based on probable cause or one based on reasonable suspicion? What kind of arrest would justify the use of force that might lead to a homicide that, by virtue of this subsection, may not be considered as a crime? Would it not have been more explicit and unambiguous to define the use of force as necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all circumstances that is, no more than is necessary or in other terms nor excessive force. Madam Speaker, we have seen a series of arrests by relevant authorities since the beginning of the mandate of this new Government and by ‘we’’ I mean…

Avan pa ti ena?

(Interruptions)

Let me finish…

Aster? ki aster?

and by ‘we’ I mean the people. Are we entitled to know where we are going with this kind of addition to our criminal code? Should we, as a population, be worried or is this leading us to a situation where we operate, where law and justice prevails? What do we do, Madam Speaker, for example when a detainee or a prisoner escapes? Does this mean this person deserve to die and justifiable under the eyes of the law? Madam Speaker, you as a legal person, must know, self-defence is already in our law. Madam Speaker, that is in section 246 of the Criminal Code but what about defence of property? Are we talking about trespass? So, many questions, Madam Speaker, that I believe the hon. Attorney General will clarify in due course. Madam Speaker, I believe that if the Government wishes to bring improvements to the present laws, fair enough, I will give my support where the interest of the people lies. However, let us not create loopholes for abuse. Ces amendements, Madame la présidente, découle du rapport comme ça a été dit de la Commission des Nations Unies contre la torture qui date de 2017 et oui, j’accepte. Peut-être qu’il fallait se pencher dessus depuis des années…

(Interruptions)

Mais cela ne veut pas dire que le régime précédent…

(Interruptions)

… ne l’a pas considéré. Quand on parle du code criminel et de la constitution d’un pays, il ne faut pas procéder au coup par coup dans ce genre de situation. Ce même rapport, Madame la présidente, évoque aussi le Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, un projet de loi qui a été longtemps évoqué mais qui attend toujours de voir le jour.

(Interruptions)

À mon humble avis, Madame la présidente, les amendements du jour viennent certes… An hon. Member: FCC!

…condamner encore plus des cas de torture mais viennent aussi exonérer l’État dans des cas spécifiques. Where do we draw the line, Madam Speaker, as a sovereign nation?

(Interruptions)

Demann gel. Li pu dir twa.

Le rapport parle aussi de beaucoup de manquements dans les enquêtes de la police, par exemple comme celle concernant le décès de Monsieur Rajesh Ramlogun décédé en détention policière le 12 janvier 2006. Madam Speaker, I believe in line with the recommendations of the United Nations, we are taking a firm stand against torture through our Constitution and by replacing section 242 of the Criminal Code and at the same time, I believe that we are also tolerating violence in specific cases which might, as I said earlier, create loopholes for any future abuse by the authorities and I would ask and request Government to trade – let us say, with caution be defining the various categories of force whether physical, restrain equipment, firearms, police dogs etc.. but more importantly, Madam Speaker, by setting the limits of the use of force. Madame la présidente, nous avons aussi remarqué une dégradation inquiétante de la situation du law and order dans le pays depuis le début de l’année.

(Interruptions)

Le gouvernement et surtout la police doit réagir afin de calmer la situation mais pour but qu’il n’y ait pas d’abus. Now, for example, Madam Speaker, to reduce to a minimum the risk of abuse by the authorities during any operation, maybe we should consider the introduction of body cameras for our police officers. This way, Madam Speaker, any arrest…

(Interruptions)

This way, Madam Speaker, any arrest, any drug seizure for that matter is filmed, recorded and Government, I believe, should amend the law so that those images can be used as evidence in Court. This way, Madam Speaker, it will be clear in the eyes of the law if there has been unjustified violence or not. We are, Madam Speaker, a peaceful country and we should leave no stone unturned in our quest to eradicate completely any suspicion of acts of torture on our territory. I am done, Madam Speaker, thank you. An. hon. Member: Good news.

We commend the law!

I propose we break for half an hour. Thank you. At 4.56 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.44 p.m. with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Hon. Members, you may be seated. I now call on hon. Lobine for his speech. Mr K. Lobine (First Member for La Caverne & Phoenix): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to give my full and unequivocal support to these two bills: the Constitution (Amendment) Bill (No. X of 2025) and the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill (No. XI of 2025). I fully adhere to the delivery of the hon. Attorney General with regard to these two Bills but I deplore the banality with which the hon. Leader of Opposition has intervened during the debate. Completely out of context; he could not understand the purpose of those two very crucial amendments that are being brought to our laws especially to our Constitution and this is something that is unbecoming from a Leader of Opposition concerning such an important piece of legislation that would bring some clarity to our position as a modern society, as a modern country whereby, once again, another milestone to restore our dignity, our democracy and our constitutional values. Madam Speaker, way back in 2017 as rightly pointed out by the hon. Attorney General, the United Nations Committee Against Torture issued clear and forceful recommendations to the Mauritius way back in 2017 – 8 years back, Madam Speaker. But the previous government, unfortunately, could not even solicit debates with regard to what was the recommendation of this Committee. What did this Committee say, Madam Speaker? They urged Mauritius to repeal section 242 of the Criminal Code which excuses manslaughter when a spouse is killed upon being caught in adultery. The Committee urged Mauritius to repeal section 7 subsection (2) of the Constitution which undermines the absolute prohibition of inhuman or degrading punishment by preserving laws from 1964, Madam Speaker, and I quote paragraph 42 of the recommendations – “The State party [that is, Mauritius] should abrogate section 242 of its Penal Code and ensure that the Constitution provides for the absolute prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”. The previous regime failed to address all these issues, Madam Speaker. Today, we have got a government together with the way that the hon. Attorney General is handing affairs with regard to those very important amendments that are being brought. Each and every 2 or 3 weeks, important amendments are being brought to consolidate our Constitution, our democracy and we are awaiting further major amendments through the establishment of a Constitutional Review Commission whereby each and every citizen would also be able to give their views on those various precolonial legislations that we need to amend and also, to revamp our Constitution after 57 years, Madam Speaker. So, Madam Speaker, I would qualify section 242 as a colonial era excuse for gender- based violence. This is the gist that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has missed to point out as a patriot. He could have, as the Leader of the Opposition, a point of view with regard to section 242, which talks about gender-based violence, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, section 242 belongs to another era. It allowed men to kill their wives or their wives’ lovers and then plead passion. It created a legal shield for violence, particularly violence against women under the narrative of betrayal but this defence has no place in a modern legal system and I would not repeat what the hon. Attorney General has said but I would just, for the sake of clarity and for the sake of the record, state the position of our judiciary, the Supreme Court with regard to those particular sections. Madam Speaker, our Courts have already began shifting away from the logic of section 242. In recent years, judgments have signalled out that the passion or jealousy can no longer excuse or mitigate violent killing. I would state a few and quote a few case laws, Madam Speaker, for the sake of this august Assembly and for the sake of completeness to know how these things are being treated by our judiciary and what the narratives that we now have to move on, with these new legislations coming in, are. In the case of State v Takoordyal, Madam Speaker – it is a 2017 Supreme Court judgement case – the Court accepted a manslaughter plea after a man killed his wife over suspected infidelity but significantly, the Court weighed not only emotion but also the calculated and prolonged nature of the act, hinting at the limits of provocation. And again, in a 2018 case of Seegoolam, Madam Speaker, the killer claimed rage after witnessing his wife with another man but the Court’s reasoning focused on the deliberate disposal of the body and the accused conduct after the fact. Then, the year after, there has been a shift in the tone and principle being adopted by the Supreme Court in Mauritius. In the case of Prayagsing Booshan, Madam Speaker – it is a 2019 case, Supreme Court judgement of 74 – the Court stated plainly, I quote – “Neither anger nor jealousy reduces the blame worthiness of a crime. In a democratic society, violence is not a means of resolving emotional conflict.” This is a shift to what the law itself was stating and this was reaffirmed in the case of Nelia. It is a 2021 Supreme Court judgement case 282, Madam Speaker. I again quote what the Court stated – “Such violence cannot be further tolerated in our society.” And again, in a 2021 case of Vishnu Bungary and confirmed in the case of Jenisen Ramen, very recently, a 2024 case Supreme Court judgement where the judiciary dismissed emotional provocation as a defence even in the face of remorse or psychological stress. So, the shift is clear and today in Parliament, all of us are unanimous to salute the actions of Government and the hon. Attorney General to bring these two amendments but again, this famous section 7(2) of our Constitution – it is a constitutional contradiction with regard to the values of a democratic society. I am of the opinion that the legality and the morality of this particular section of our Constitution is untenable. And again, I salute, I congratulate the Government and the hon. Attorney General to bring this amendment and this, in fact, protects human dignity, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the hon. Attorney General referred to France. Yes, France repealed its crime of passions defence in 1975 by abolishing article 324 of the penal code. And that was also followed by Italy in 1981, repealing its article 587 which had allowed reduced sentences for adultery-based killings. Other countries also, Madam Speaker, Portugal has done so with abolishing its article 133 of its penal code. Brazil, Madam Speaker, in 1991. The UK, Madam Speaker, under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, created a new partial defence of loss of control but explicitly excluded sexual infidelity as qualifying trigger. New Zealand also – these are Commonwealth countries, Madam Speaker – abolished the provocation defence altogether in 2009. And in Australia, Madam Speaker, every State has now repealed or severely restricted the provocation defence with South Australia completing the process in 2020. So, better late than never. It should have been done in 2017-2018 but we are in 2025 with a new Government, mandated by the people of Mauritius and we fully support this Bill. And, Madam Speaker, when we talk about this famous section 242, we cannot speak of that section without acknowledging that it has overwhelmingly shielded men who kill women. Again, vividly described by the hon. Attorney General; it has allowed rage to masquerade as honour and permitted our Courts against their better instincts to reduce murder to manslaughter in the name of passion. By repealing section 242, Madam Speaker, in this very august Assembly, we say that a woman’s life is not worth less because she is unfaithful. Adultery is not a provocation to violence and no one has a legal right to kill in the name of wounded pride. This reform, these two amendment Bills, Madam Speaker, strengthen our commitment under CEDAW and the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development to eliminate all forms of gender-based violence. Madam Speaker, this Bill does not just update our law; it upholds the dignity of every person, aligns our statutes with our Constitution, respects international obligations and ends the legal fiction that some killings are excusable because they are emotional. It also reflects what our Courts have already began to do with those latest judgements. And today in Parliament, we shall be making history again because we shall choose justice over tradition and dignity over vengeance. I fully support this Bill. I thank you all for your kind attention.

Thank you. Hon. Minister of Gender, it is your turn! (5.58 p.m.)

Madame la présidente, merci de me donner la parole ce soir sur ce débat autour d’une part, les deux amendements qui sont apportés au Criminal Code, notamment les sections 242 et 245, et à celui qui est porté à la Constitution de Maurice avec l’abrogation de la section 7(2) liée à la torture, auxquels j’adhère totalement. Depuis six mois, ce gouvernement a réussi à placer notre pays à l’aube d’une ère nouvelle. Et, je voudrais ici rendre hommage à mon collègue, l’Attorney General, d’être venu aussi rapidement avec ces amendements, tant au niveau de la Constitution de Maurice qu’au niveau du code pénal, qui, j’en suis certaine, feront date dans l’histoire de la justice mauricienne. Je vais d’abord aborder l’article 242 du code pénal et ensuite, l’amendement proposé à la Constitution. Pendant trop longtemps, Madame la présidente, l’article 242 du Code pénal a servi à justifier une injustice profonde légitimant sous le vernis des vieilles traditions des actes de violences qui ne sont rien d’autres que le reflet d’un déséquilibre entre l’honneur masculin et le droit inaliénable des femmes à la sécurité. Aujourd’hui, les femmes de ce pays vivent un moment historique, car avec l’abrogation de la section 242 du Code pénal, nous tournons résolument la page de toutes formes d’injustice envers les femmes. Dans sa logique historique, la section 242 du Code pénal justifie les féminicides en offrant une excuse légale à un mari tuant sa femme en flagrant délit d’adultère, alors que le contraire ne s’applique pas. Or, la loi doit être un rempart inébranlable contre la violence – une voix forte qui met fin à l’impunité et une réponse à celles qui ont trop longtemps été réduites au silence. L’abrogation de la section 242 du Code pénal veut dire que tout cas d’homicide, de blessure et de coup infligés par un mari ou un conjoint en cas d’adultère ne sera plus considéré comme excusable. En effet, servir l’adultère comme une justification ou comme une excuse pour violenter ou tuer une personne n’a plus sa place dans la société dans laquelle nous vivons aujourd’hui. Dans de nombreux cas, nous avons tous été témoins du degré de violence ignoble, voire odieux, utilisé contre les femmes. Des fois, Madame la présidente, la violence est utilisée rien que sur des soupçons d’infidélité pour commettre des crimes infâmes. Avec l’abrogation de la section 242, nous mettons fin à un système patriarcal de notre société qui a trop duré. L’histoire nous rappelle combien ces conceptions ont été ancrées dans certaines sociétés. William Blackstone, juriste britannique, définissait les femmes comme des chattels de leurs maris – des possessions, des biens privés, dénués de statut juridique ou d’autonomie. Il y avait the doctrine of irrevocable consent upon marriage, as stated by Sir Mattew Hale, where in his opinion, a husband does not require consent from his spouse for sexual intercourse as the latter is an essential part of the marriage. Blackstone shared the same opinion when he developed the Unity Theory. Cette croyance, Madame la présidente, a justifié des siècles d’injustices et de violences sous prétexte de droit conjugal. Si cette conception archaïque a été renversée en 1980 aux États-Unis par une décision de la Cour suprême dans l’affaire Trammel v. United States, affirmant enfin que les femmes sont des entités juridiques indépendantes, nous devons toutefois regretter que la criminalisation du viol conjugal demeure encore aujourd’hui en suspens dans tant de pays, y compris le nôtre, chez nous. Il est inadmissible qu’une femme puisse être contrainte, sous prétexte du mariage, que l’union légale puisse être invoquée pour priver une personne de son consentement et de son intégrité. Nous avons le devoir absolu de mettre fin à cette ambiguïté juridique et de reconnaitre que toute forme de violence, y compris dans le cas du mariage, doit être sanctionnée sans exception. Marital rape, Madam Speaker, is an issue that has to be dealt with at a later stage. Probably in the Domestic Abuse Bill currently under preparation. Mauritius too will have to mark the death sentence of the marital rape exception. I am happy that the Attorney General announces a Sexual Offences Bill which will be presented in Parliament. This Bill will encompass, I am sure, sexual abuse on women and minors altogether. Madame la présidente, la démarche de ce gouvernement n’est pas un acte isolé, mais une pierre angulaire d’une politique globale visant à rétablir l’égalité réelle et à offrir à chaque être humain et surtout aux femmes la protection qu’elles méritent. Mais cette réforme, aussi fondamentale soit-elle, ne suffit pas à elle seule à transformer les mentalités qui, trop souvent, continuent de perpétuer la domination masculine dans notre société. Cette avancée législative s’inscrit dans la logique de nos engagements internationaux et régionaux. La Convention sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l’égard des femmes (CEDEF) nous exhorte depuis longtemps à supprimer ces justifications archaïques qui ne sont rien de moins qu’un affront à l’égalité et aux droits fondamentaux des femmes. Nous sommes aussi signataires du Maputo Protocol de 1995 qui, lui aussi, exhorte les États membres à adopter les mesures nécessaires pour prévenir et éradiquer la violence à l’égard des femmes. Nous devons, donc, éliminer toutes les formes de discriminations à l’encontre des femmes. Grâce à ce gouvernement, nous sommes donc entrés dans la modernité au même titre que des pays tels que l’Australie, le Canada et le Royaume-Uni qui, eux aussi, ont amendé leurs lois pour rendre justice aux femmes. Avec la présentation de ces amendements, désormais, un mari ou un conjoint qui tue sa femme ou sa conjointe va devoir répondre de ses actes devant la justice. Madame la présidente, nous portons, aujourd’hui, une responsabilité immense : celle de ne pas céder aux demi-mesures, ni de nous satisfaire de simples ajustements. Nous répondons, aujourd’hui, à cet appel avec détermination et avec des amendements qui reflètent notre volonté de progresser vers une justice véritablement équitable. Nous devons aller plus loin, réformer, éduquer et garantir que chaque citoyenne et chaque citoyen de ce pays puisse jouir de la pleine protection de la loi, indépendamment de son genre, de son statut ou de son messeoir. La confiance de la population nous impose une exigence absolue d’actions. Avec les amendements que nous propose l’Attorney General et l’arrivée bientôt du Domestic Abuse Bill, fini le temps où certains identifiaient leurs épouses comme leur possession, leur bien, leur propriété plutôt que comme des êtres humains indépendants. Madame la présidente, dans cette même lignée, l’abrogation de la section 7 (2) de la Constitution était nécessaire parce que Maurice a ratifié les sept traités fondamentaux des droits humains des Nations unies et cinq optional protocols liés à ces traités, y compris la Convention contre la torture. En supprimant l’article 7 (2) de notre Constitution, cette action redéfinit clairement notre espace juridique. Elle proclame que toute loi autorisant des peines susceptibles d’impliquer tortures ou traitements inhumains est incompatible avec nos valeurs fondamentales. Concrètement, ce changement renforce la protection des droits fondamentaux et crée un rempart juridique contre toutes pratiques contraires aux droits humains. Plus jamais un individu ne pourra voir sa dignité bafouée sous prétexte de sécurité ou de répression, même dans les cas les plus graves. Ce changement améliore le contrôle et la responsabilité de nos institutions. En effet, Madame la présidente, même si la création de la Commission indépendante des plaintes contre la police a été saluée par les experts des Nations unies, il est à constater cependant que les enquêtes diligentées par cette instance montrent que, trop souvent, les plaintes relatives à ces violences ne débouchent pas sur une action judiciaire ferme, laissant les victimes livrées à leur désarroi. Ce problème est tout aussi grave lorsqu’il s’agit des cas de trafic humain dénoncés par des ONG et touchant principalement des femmes et des enfants vulnérables. Ces situations alarmantes soulignent la nécessité cruciale d’un cadre juridique qui garantisse en toutes circonstances que la dignité humaine ne soit jamais compromise. En imposant une norme constitutionnelle claire, face à la torture et en redéfinissant la section 245 du code pénal, nous dotons les organes de contrôle et les enquêtes indépendantes telles que l’IPCC d’un cadre juridique solide pour agir efficacement contre les abus. Cela permettra de restaurer la confiance des citoyens mauriciens dans notre système judiciaire et de positionner Maurice à la pointe des standards internationaux. Au niveau régional et international, notre engagement fera de Maurice un exemple en matière de respect des droits humains. Le ministère de l’Egalité des genres et du Bien-être familial travaille chaque jour pour protéger les plus vulnérables et garantir que la justice ne serve jamais de prétexte à des abus. En adoptant ces réformes, nous faisons le choix déterminant d’une législation qui, même en cas de détention, place le respect des droits de chacun au-dessus de toutes considérations. On ne peut pas tuer la vérité, Madame la présidente. On ne peut pas tuer la justice. On ne peut pas tuer ce pourquoi nous nous battons. En nous engageant pour ces amendements, nous affirmons notre combat pour la justice, la dignité et le respect de chaque citoyenne et citoyen, et l’opportunité historique de corriger des dérives. Je vous remercie.

Merci, Madame la ministre. Hon. Deputy Prime Minister! (6.12 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, je tiens à commencer un court discours en cette occasion, mais je tiens à commencer ce discours en criant, pas en disant, mais en criant mon indignation à un moment où nous amendons la loi suprême du pays, notre constitution, pour faire des choses admirables. Au moment où le leader de l’opposition fait son discours - ils sont deux assis là-bas dans l’opposition ; deux ! -, l’autre n’est même pas présent. Et ce même leader de l’opposition, aussitôt son discours terminé, nous tourne le dos, il s’en va. Après avoir dit qu’il est en faveur du projet de loi, un projet de loi qui nécessite trois quarts pour amender la constitution. Monsieur, ça ne le concerne pas. Il a fini de se faire voir à la télévision, il s’en va. C’est pourquoi je crie mon indignation. C’est choquant de voir ce qu’il reste comme opposition, se comporter de cette façon en une occasion pareille. Ceci dit, je ne serai pas long. Puisque l’Attorney General est parmi nous, bravo, et bravo pour le discours qu’il a prononcé en notre nom à tous. Je ne vais donc pas me répéter. Mais aujourd’hui, c’est quand même le jour où nous amendons notre constitution pour y mettre l’absolute prohibition of torture. C’est un grand jour. C’est un jour qui s’est trop fait attendre, mais c’est un grand jour. C’est aussi le jour où manslaughter committed by any person on his spouse as well as on his partner at the very moment he finds them in the act of adultery, will no more be an excusable offence. C’est un grand jour pour ces deux raisons, et je félicite ma collègue la ministre de l’Egalité des genres et du Bien-être familial pour le discours qu’elle vient de prononcer, Madam Speaker. Deux grands moments pour tous ceux qui sont ici et qui sont fiers de participer. Nous savons qu’à l’horizon - l’Attorney General l’a annoncé -, se profile un new Sexual Offences and Hate Crimes Bill, et nous trouverons le plus tôt possible, nous l’espérons tous, dans ce new Sexual Offences and Hate Crimes Bill, un nouveau délit, le marital rape, qui, nous devons le reconnaître, n’est pas quelque chose d’accepté par tous, parce que les préjugés sont difficiles à vaincre. Mais que vienne le plus rapidement possible ce jour-là. Quant à moi, je n’ai pas de doute que l’Attorney General que nous avons saura aussi apporter une nouvelle définition, dans ce texte de loi à venir, parce que la définition - marital rape is one thing - de rape qui est dans notre loi est complètement dépassée. Nous le ferons tous ensemble, under the guidance de l’Attorney General, et nous aurons une nouvelle définition de rape. Ces jours-ci, comme nous le savons tous et surtout vous-même, presque tous les jours, il y a des débats dans la presse, dans la presse spécialisée sur la définition actuelle de ce qui devrait être la définition actuelle de rape. Donc, je dis ces quelques mots pour saluer ma collègue la ministre de l’Egalité des genres et du Bien-être familial, et surtout en ce jour tellement important, en notre nom à tous, pour remercier et féliciter l’Attorney General pour le service immense qu’il rend à son pays en cette occasion. Merci, Madam Speaker.

Merci. Yes, hon. Prime Minister! (6.17 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, the two Bills we are presenting today, one for amending the Constitution, and the other one to amend the Criminal Code, aim at removing exceptions to provisions in our legislations which allow torture. The Criminal Code is also amended in respect of any injustice in our law, recording the so-called excusable homicide committed by a man on his spouse. I will address the House in the first instance on the amendments relating to Chapter II of the Constitution. Madam Speaker, I will not repeat what the Attorney General, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Gender have just said, so eloquently. These amendments are in line with our Government Programme, which provided for amendments to be made to Chapter II of the Constitution to better protect our fundamental rights. As the Attorney General has pointed out, section 7(1), I want to repeat it because it’s important, section 7(1) of our Constitution provides that – “(1) No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other such treatment.” However, the same section, section 7(2) on ‘Protection from inhuman treatment’ – “(…) authorises the infliction of any description of punishment that was lawful in Mauritius on 11 March 1964.” By authorising such punishment, this section, that is, section 7(2), opens the door to gross violation of human rights by an oppressive regime meant on defying universal principles regarding physical integrity and dignity. With these amendments we are proposing today, we are aligning our national legislation with the universal principles that enhance fundamental rights and fundamental freedom of individuals as laid down in Chapter II of our Constitution. Therefore, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill proposes to repeal section 7(2) of the Constitution completely. It is important to recall that section 7 appears under the heading ‘Protection from inhuman treatment’ and forms part, as I said, of Chapter II of our Constitution. It is entitled ‘Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual’. Chapter II, Madam Speaker, is at the very heart of our democracy. In the Government Programme, we have made clear our intention to strengthen and further extend these fundamental rights. The repeal of section 7(2) is one step in the wider process. While section 7(1) bans torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment, section 7(2) allows for exceptions to this rule. As the law stands, if that punishment was legal in March 1964, then it cannot be considered unconstitutional even if it is inhuman. That section was originally inserted as part of a larger set of transitional arrangements around independence. In theory, it was meant to provide continuity in the legal system. In practice, it preserved a dangerous mindset. The idea that some forms of torture could be perpetrated by the State as long as it was allowed in a law of the colonial era is erroneous. As the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council noted in a case from the Bahamas, provisions like these often call special saving clauses allowed for colonial laws to be repealed and then reinstated without being subject to constitutional challenge. Madam Speaker, no sensible government today would call for the return of corporal punishment such as flogging or whipping, but the exception remains on the book, as the Attorney General just pointed out, and its very presence weakens the coherence of our Constitution. Worse, it opens the door for such punishments to be reintroduced by a simple Bill, as the Attorney General pointed out, and thus bypass the constitutional ban on torture. This is why the United Nations Committee against Torture has repeatedly asked us to repeal section 7(2) and to bring our Constitution in line with the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition against torture. The recommendation is clear: no justification may be involved under any circumstances, be it legal, political, or historical to permit torture or inhuman punishment. We are in total agreement with the stand of the Committee, and we are acting accordingly. Madam Speaker, our Constitution is sacred; any Constitution, but it is a living instrument not a museum. It must be updated where parts of it no longer serve the purpose, value the values which we hold and may require further safeguards. This is the task which is the Constitutional Review Commission will examine, hopefully shortly. It will work on the promises of the Government, of our Government Programme such as a new generation of rights, of citizens, of nature, electoral reform and the consolidation of national unity. It will require time, expertise, and consultations. But, in the meantime, whatever we can do to repeal an absurdity such as the one we are tackling today, we will do so straightaway. As per the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill, it is a direct consequence of the repeal of section 7(2) of the Constitution because it deals with homicides, blows under lawful authority. We are ensuring that it remains clearly within the scope of the revised constitutional provision. In other words, no exceptions, no loopholes, no confusion. Force cannot be used by the State at the expense of human dignity. The new section 245 explicitly allows for the use of force only under very narrow defined conditions: in defence of persons, of property, in the course of lawful arrest, to supress a riot, to prevent the commission of a serious crime, and even when such conditions are met, the use of force can only be to such an extent as can be reasonably justified in these circumstances. The message is clear. We cannot and we will not tolerate any form of torture, whether from the police or anyone else. This Government will not allow any abuse carried out by certain rogue groups, which we have seen under the previous regime did such things. The citizens of this country must not and will not accept barbarism. Now, Madam Speaker, the other amendment of the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill, that is, the repeal of section 242. This provision dates back, again, to our colonial era. It was directly inspired by Article 324 of the old Code pénal. It provides that persons who kill their spouse and the spouse’s lover upon discovering them in the act of adultery is guilty only of an ‘excusable’ homicide. In fact, it offers a partial defence to the so-called crime of passion. Article 324 was repealed in France, as was rightly said, in 1975. 50 years ago, it was already recognised that this provision was based on an outdated and sexist assumption, in particular that a man as if could possess his wife and that a woman who was unfaithful deserved to die. It is high time we recognise it in Mauritius that this cannot be so. The law is uneven in its application and it extends the excuse to the male spouse but not to women, only to the male spouse, in similar situations. More fundamentally, it legitimises violence against women under the cover of emotional reaction. It is true, Madam Speaker, that section 242 has never been invoked in any known case here, but its presence in our law, as rightly pointed out by the Attorney General, is in itself an affront to the principle of equality. The fact that it remains dormant does not make it harmless. If it is not repealed, it could one day be used - I think the Attorney General gave an example of Bahamas, if I am not mistaken -, where an act of deadly violence can be rekindled, and that is a risk we cannot afford. The argument is simple. There is no crime of passion; a crime is a crime. Anger, betrayal, emotional distress, these may explain behaviour, but they do not excuse the act of actually killing. A society governed by the rule of law cannot allow emotions to justify the taking of a human life. This principle must be taught to our children and understood by all of us, and it must first be respected by our State and embodied in our laws. Over the past decades, our society has seen an accelerated decay in its moral fabric. The law of the jungle and unabashed greed have prevailed, leading to frustration, despair in the hearts of many. The consequences are there for all of us to see. We have seen cases of road rage, neighbourhood aggression, even lynching, domestic killing, which are too frequent. The reflex of violence as an emotional response must be stopped. My Government is all too aware of the immensity of the challenge, but we are determined. The repeal of section 242 also addresses another issue. The continued existence of this section contradicts, in fact, our Constitution’s commitment to non-discrimination. Section 3 and section 16 of our Constitution protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals without distinction. Section 242, by contrast, does this opposite. It allows for the law to excuse the killing of a woman by a man because she is unfaithful to him, but makes no such provision if the roles were reversed and it was the woman who killed the man. I think the hon. Minister for Gender Equality and Family Welfare rightly stressed on this. This is not only discriminatory but also degrading. That is why in 2017, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions described section 242 as an unjustifiable lenient approach and rightly pointed out that no one, male or female, owns or possesses his or her spouse or partner. To leave section 242 in or law is to maintain the idea that violence, in some cases, is understandable or acceptable when it is directed against a woman. That fiction has no place in the law of a republic that claims to treat all its citizens equally. Some may ask, ‘why now’? I think the Leader of Opposition has a misconceived idea. I don’t know what he was talking about, in fact. But some may say, ‘why now? If the provision has never been used, why not leave it alone’? The answer is what the Attorney General has just said. The law is not about precedents; it is about possibilities. A law that has never been used can still be invoked tomorrow, and if it is against the principle we aspire to uphold, of equality before the law or protection against violence, of non-discrimination, then it should be removed. Madam Speaker, these two reforms - one constitutional and one legislative - are part of the same broader commitment to modernise our legal framework to remove outdated and harmful provisions and to align our laws with both our international obligations and our democratic values. The past has shaped us, but it does not define our future. Let us ensure that the laws of this country reflect not the outmoded Mose and prejudices of a distant era but the convictions of our own time. With these words, I commend both Bills to the House.

Thank you. Yes, your winding-up speech, hon. Attorney General. (6.31 p.m.) The Attorney General (Mr G. P. C. Glover, S.C.): I like the term, Madam Speaker, ‘winding-up’. I would have thought ‘winding down’, but when you will hear what I have to say, maybe we will say that the expression ‘winding-up’ is the proper expression. Let me first start by addressing the hon. Minister for Gender, my colleague, and say in no uncertain terms that marital rape will become an offence in the next law, and let me address what the hon. Deputy Prime Minister said. Yes, we will look at the new definition of ‘rape’ in order to ensure due protection of our citizens in this country. We shall not shy away from these fundamental changes, Madam Speaker. It is by promoting a proper structure of our criminal justice system that we will ensure equality before the law, an essential ingredient for the rule of law to prosper. Now, as an answer to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, not for the first time in this legislature, Madam Speaker, have we been served with a half-baked intervention from the hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is not because one is in the Opposition that it becomes necessary to say something just for the sake of saying so. We were even served with the very expression I used in my address when I said that, on this side of the House, we shall leave no stone unturned and bang, right on time, the same expression was used by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Then, the hon. Leader of the Opposition gave us a brief of what the United Nations had observed as far back as 2017-2018. What he did not tell us is that faced with the inactive and downright derelict attitude of the previous regime of the previous years, we had to come up with a quick but nonetheless substantial amendment to placate the Committee against Torture in early April when I attended the Geneva Convention, and it worked, Madam Speaker. Next is the inexplicable aberration from the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we should go about things rather cautiously. He said, “step by step”, and guess what? Exactly the same words I had used in my conclusion, and his next point was rather extraordinary because he told us that when amending section 245, we should not create loopholes. When we amend the law and we put stringent conditions on a law, he says we are creating loopholes. How he comes to that conclusion is beyond me and the final straw was the inability of the hon. Leader of the Opposition to actually grasp the fact that the language of the new section 245 before this House today, as amended, is an exact replica of section 4(2) of our Constitution. The (a), (b), (c) and (d) stem from our Constitution and he did not even realise it, and he based his speech on it. I am tempted to lapse back in French and ask you, Madam Speaker – “Qui dit mieux, Madame la présidente. ” So, at this stage, Madam Speaker, I move…

You again commend the Bills to the House?

I commend the Bills to the House. Yes.

And the motion of course. The motion needs to be seconded again. Question put and agreed to. Bills read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) The Constitution (Amendment) Bill (No. X of 2025) was considered and agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill (No. X of 2025) was read a third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I move for a division of votes.

Yes. Hon. Members, since some of you are new to the House, I will say a few words, as this Bill requires a qualified majority of votes of not less than three- quarter of all of the hon. Members of the Assembly pursuant to section 47(2) (c) of the Constitution. We will then proceed with the taking of votes by division. The division bell will ring for two minutes and a division shall be taken and recorded by the Acting Clerk by asking each hon. Member separately, in accordance with precedence, beginning with the Member who stands last in that order. The votes shall be taken by Ayes and Noes. An hon. Member may also choose to abstain from voting. Acting Clerk, please proceed with the division. (Division Bells were rung) On question put, the House divided. AYES 1. Hon. Ms A. Savabaddy 2. Hon. R. Saumtally 3. Hon. K. Rookny 4. Hon. C. Ramkalawon 5. Hon. A. Ramdass 6. Hon. F. Quirin 7. Dr. the hon. S. Prayag 8. Hon. C. Lukeeram 9. Hon. K. Lobine 10. Hon. S. Jugurnauth 11. Hon. R. Jhummun 12. Hon. Ms D. Henriette-Manan 13. Hon. F. François 14. Hon. R. Etwareea 15. Hon. J. Edouard 16. Dr. the hon. Ms R. Daureeawo 17. Hon. Ms M. R. Collet 18. Hon. L. Caserne 19. Hon. N. Beejan 20. Hon. R. Beechook 21. Hon. C. Baboolall 22. Hon. B. Babajee 23. Hon. T. Apollon 24. Hon. P. Venkatasami 25. Hon. E. Juman 26. Hon. V. Baloomoody 27. Hon. Ms S. Anquetil 28. Hon. Ms V. Leu-Govind 29. Hon. K. Parapen 30. Hon. H. Narsinghen 31. Hon. Ms A. Babooram 32. Hon. F. Allymun 33. Hon. S. Pierre 34. Hon. Ms K. Foo Kune-Bacha 35. Hon. F. David 36. Hon. Ms J. Bérenger 37. Hon. D. Damry 38. Hon. M. Gondeea 39. Hon. R. Woochit 40. Hon. L. Pentiah 41. Dr. the hon. A. Ramtohul 42. Dr. the hon. M. Gungapersad 43. Hon. A. Ameer Meea 44. Dr. the hon. K. Sukon 45. Hon. M. Yeung Sik Yuen 46. Hon. Ms A. Navarre-Marie 47. Hon. Osman Mahomed 48. Hon. R. Uteem 49. Hon. D. Nagalingum 50. Hon. P. Assirvaden 51. Hon. A. Subron 52. Hon. R. Duval 53. Hon. A. Bachoo 54. Hon. G. Gunness 55. Dr. the hon. A. Boolell 56. Hon. S. Mohamed 57. Hon. P. Bérenger 58. Hon. Prime Minister ABSENT 1. Dr. the hon. Ms B. Thannoo 2. Hon. M. Seeburn 3. Dr. the hon. F. Aumeer 4. Hon. A. Duval 5. Hon. G. Lesjongard 6. Hon. D. Ramful 7. Dr. the hon. Ms J. Jeetun 8. Hon. R. Bhagwan

Hon. Members, the results of the Division are as follows – Ayes: 58 Noes: 0 Abstention: 0 Absent: 8 Hon. Members, I wish to inform the House that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill (No. X of 2025) has, on final voting, obtained 58 votes, that is, has been supported by a three- quarter majority as required by Section 47 (2) (c) of the Constitution. I declare that the Bill has been read a third time and passed.

(Applause)

COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) THE CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. XI of 2025) The Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill (No. XI of 2025) was considered and agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill (No. XI of 2025) was read a third time and passed.