First Reading On motion made and seconded, the following Bills were read a first time – (i) The Criminal Code (Amendment No. 2) Bill (No. XXVI of 2025); (ii) The Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill (No. XXV of 2025). Second Reading THE CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL (NO. XXVI OF 2025) Order for Second Reading read. (4.04 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Criminal Code (Amendment No. 2) Bill (No. XXVI of 2025) be read a second time. Madam Speaker, in 2021, this House enacted an amendment to the Criminal Code, introducing a new section 76B. Its purpose, at the time, was clear. It sought to criminalise the distribution or production of coins, stamps, maps, or other official objects or documents that misrepresented our sovereignty over any part of our national territory, especially over the Chagos Archipelago. It was a legal tool crafted in response to a very specific challenge: the persistent disregard for our territorial integrity. The law must be understood against its historical background. The fight for justice over Chagos began even at the Lancaster House Conference for Independence, when Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam objected and opposed the then deal to dismantle Chagos from our territory, and also, after independence. I wish here to pay tribute today to the heroes of that struggle. Among them were courageous Chagossians, including women such as the late Lisette Talate and Charlesia Alexis who undertook hunger strikes in the 1970s. There was Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam who always saw the injustice of the pre-independence consultations for what they were: pure blackmail. In 1980, he thus secured a historical resolution for the organisation of African Unity calling for the return of Chagos. He also raised the matter at the UN General Assembly. There was also the now Deputy Prime Minister, hon. Paul Bérenger, and the MMM, who brought the issue firmly onto the national political conscience. And yes, there was also Sir Anerood Jugnauth who agreed to follow the plan of action that we had laid down with our lawyer, Mr Philip Sands K.C., and he went to the UN and the Hague in 2018, as we had planned if we were to win at the Tribunal of the Law of the Sea. History will remember that our victory today is built upon their unwavering efforts. Credit should also be given to a number of NGOs in Mauritius and abroad; and individuals who contributed in a significant manner to the struggle for our sovereignty. Madam Speaker, in 2010, as Prime Minister, I chose to take our struggle to a new level for the first time, to bring the matter before the courts, the Arbitral Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. It was a deliberate strategy: to build, step by step, a solid foundation in international law for our claim. Many thought we would not win but we did. In 2015, we secured our first major success before that Tribunal, with the ruling against the proposed British Marine Protected Area. And the strategy I had set in motion continued after my term in office and ultimately led, in 2019, to the favourable Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. It authoritatively determined that the Chagos Archipelago is and has always formed an integral part of the territory of Mauritius, and that the process of decolonisation of Mauritius was not completed upon its accession to independence in view of the unlawful excision of the Chagos Archipelago from its territory. Subsequently, in 2021, a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea delivered in the Maritime Boundary Delimitation Case between Mauritius and Maldives, a judgement in which it held that the determination made by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019 are legally binding and confirmed that Mauritius has undisputed sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. Now, despite this clear determination of the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, the United Kingdom continued to cause stamps and coins to be issued purportedly on behalf of the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’. Some individuals, groups and entities continued to do as if Mauritius did not have sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. They performed actions that could only be validated by a State in the exercise of its sovereign powers. In fact, Madam Speaker, in Article 2 of the Agreement we signed with the UK in relation to the Chagos, it is now expressly stated that the issuance of such coins or stamps can only be done by Mauritius as a sovereign State and nobody else. Section 76B of the Criminal Code was conceived in a specific context where it was intended to apply only to expressions of sovereign authority on the part of a foreign State or an entity acting on behalf of such State. But as with all laws, Madam Speaker, context matters and context evolves. Today, Mauritius stands on a very different footing. In May of this year, Mauritius and the United Kingdom signed a new Treaty concerning the Chagos Archipelago, in which our sovereignty is unequivocally recognised. Article 1 of that Treaty speaks for itself, and let me quote – “Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago in its entirety, including Diego Garcia.” That solemn recognition, therefore, changes everything. The raison d’être of section 76B, therefore, no longer exists. Our sovereignty is no longer being questioned by any State or any international organisation. The law has served its purpose, and this means that it should now make way for a new chapter. But the point is deeper, Madam Speaker, and it is important that our nation hears it from this House. Section 76B was a shield. It was not meant as a sword, it was a shield. It defended us against a persistent and well-funded campaign to deny our sovereignty. It was never intended to muzzle our own people, or to criminalise debate. Now, having prevailed in our long struggle for recognition, diplomatically, legally and morally, we must ensure that the laws we keep on our books reflect the confidence of a sovereign nation. This shield should not become a cage. It has lost its raison d’être. Our democracy is founded on liberty, including the liberty to debate matters of national importance, even passionately. In this regard, Section 76B may create misgivings. When it was passed, some feared that one could, by merely discussing the Chagos, risk prosecution if the law is instrumentalised in a perverse manner, that it so often did under the previous regime. And as hon. Reza Uteem noted during the debates at the time, it did contain some serious inconsistencies and limitations. We are not here today to rewrite history or to criticise a law that actually served a moment of necessity. It was introduced with good intentions. It demonstrated our determination to assert our sovereignty while some countries and individuals did not fully acknowledge so. But today, clinging to that law would be counterproductive. It risks giving ammunition to those who, even now, try to portray Mauritius as an intolerant country of dissent, or oppressive towards Chagossians who hold different views. It risks sustaining an outdated perception that our sovereignty must be defended by legal force rather than by the strength of the law and the weight of international legitimacy that we have earned. No, Madam Speaker, even those very few Chagossians who deny our sovereignty, very often for very personal reasons, linked to their own trajectories, whether they live here or abroad, have the right to have their views and do not need to worry about facing criminal charges against them. Repealing section 76B is an act of democratic self-confidence. It says to the world that –  Mauritius has no fear of the words.  Mauritius does not criminalise ideas.  Mauritius lives up to its constitutional promises that guided our struggle for justice. Madam Speaker, as we repeal this provision, we must also acknowledge a wider challenge. Too many laws remain on our books that criminalise speech in ways that are out of place in a modern democracy. This is the legacy, in part, of colonial rule. And the time has come for a broader review. We will move forward with reforms to ensure that offences such as “criminal defamation” or “scandalising the court” or “outrage against public or religious morality” do not unduly suppress legitimate expression, but instead target true harm, such as incitement to violence or hatred. Abusive creations of the previous regime, such as – I laugh when I think of it – “causing annoyance”. Clauses of ICTA will have to be reviewed as well. The Attorney General’s Office is moving ahead with a comprehensive review inspired by the Preliminary Report of Geoffrey Robertson K.C., which I had commissioned back in 2013. He had produced a report which has been squarely ignored by the previous regime for a whole decade. Madam Speaker, there are indeed such areas where conduct is currently criminalised despite the fact that there is no victim. No victim is being harmed or where there is no prejudice that cannot simply be sanctioned by civil proceedings. Criminal sanctions should not be society’s default instrument in those contexts. And whenever it comes to striking a balance, such as between privacy and the public interest, the dignity of individuals and the right of the press will be guided by strong constitutional principles and by our longstanding respect for human rights. Madam Speaker, our identity is built on the foundations of democracy, the rule of law and dignity for every Mauritian, including our compatriots of Chagossian origins, who may well hold diverse perspectives on resettlement and their future but that is their right. There can now be only one single flag over the Chagos, our sovereign State. One sovereign State. One nation. As the ratification process proceeds, we sincerely and successfully hope through the steps at the British Parliament, it is important that we dispel the unwarranted lies about our national character. We are a sovereign nation which values all its friends, but which also stands by its word. We pledge to honour the commitments made in the historical treaty of May 2025. Let us, therefore, stand today not only united but unafraid. Repealing section 76B is the natural step of a sovereign nation that has prevailed. It shows maturity. It shows that we are un État de droit. It shows that we trust our people. And it confirms that our moral victory does not need to be secured through the criminal law but through the strength of the truth only. With these words, I commend the Bill to the House. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded.

Hon. Narsinghen. (4.18 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr H. Narsinghen): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to address the House on the Criminal Code (Amendment No. 2) Bill (No. XXVI of 2025). The repeal of section 76B of the Criminal Code is not a mere act of legislative housekeeping. It is a meaningful and impactful reform that aligns our law with the new international reality that is, the sovereignty of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelagos is recognised, affirmed and operational. I have listened carefully to the Prime Minister. It is true that when the law was passed in 2021, possibly, it was passed with good intention. I would say it was a sort of necessary evil. I will explain why there were some very important shortcomings in the law at that point in time. The Prime Minister also explained the context and how, with the repealing of the law, we are again consolidating democracy but I would like to hammer on the context, Madam Speaker. Section 76B was enacted to criminalise the so-called misrepresentation of the sovereignty of Mauritius by prohibiting maps, stamps, coins or documents depicting Chagos as anything other than Mauritian. At that time, our sovereignty was still being contested internationally. The former approach sought to defend our claims symbolically through criminal law and I lay emphasis on the symbolical approach. Madam Speaker, as explained by the Prime Minister, the context has changed fundamentally. In May 2025, Mauritius and the United Kingdom, as you know, signed a landmark treaty by which the United Kingdom unequivocally, as pointed out by the Prime Minister, recognised Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelagos. The British Parliament, a few days back, has also ratified this outcome and the territorial dispute that endured since 1965, is for all practical purposes, resolved. Keeping section 76B, I would say, would be redundant and maybe a risk, making our law appear disconnected from the facts and recent events. Therefore, repeal is necessary to ensure our statutory book reflects the national truth. Mauritius is no longer asserting or claiming sovereignty; it now exercises the sovereignty. We have moved from what I would qualify as a defensive stance to proactive governance. So, how we got here, that is from litigation to recognition? Madam Speaker, the road to the treaty was arduous, exacting and painstaking as explained by the Prime Minister. The ICJ Advisory Opinion in February 2019 found the separation of Chagos in 1965 to be unlawful and urged the UK to end its administration as rapidly as possible. The United Nation General Assembly Resolutions endorsed the ICJ’s view and called for international support to complete our decolonisation. And also, as explained by the Prime Minister, the International Tribunal on Law of the Sea reaffirmed Mauritian sovereign rights and clarified maritime entitlement in the Indian Ocean. At that point in time, this was triggered by the Prime Minister and you will remember how the Prime Minister and his team, at that point in time, chose deliberately one very famous international barrister, Ian Brownlee, who unfortunately passed away, and subsequently it was the Prime Minister and his team who chose also Mr Philippe Sands. Building on these milestones required persistent diplomacy. Coordinated between the Prime Minister’s office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the DPM’s office, the AG’s office, spearheaded by the AG himself, moved us from principle to agreement. By early 2025, negotiations, as you know Madam Speaker, culminated in the treaty that the UK Parliament has ratified as I mentioned before. So, the final vote of the House of Lord will soon close the chapter. The sceptic and birds of bad omen did not believe in the historical achievement. They were making a mockery of our patient and quiet diplomacy. They underestimated the capacity of our Prime Minister, the DPM and the Attorney General and our Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be real champions of what I would qualify as quiet and efficient diplomacy. This is not simply a legal milestone; it is the completion of decolonisation. So, this is what I would also qualify as quiet diplomacy over noisy posturing as it happened with the previous regime. This achievement was not born out provocation or theatrics; it was delivered by calm, credible and respectful diplomacy. The kind that builds trust not tension. Grand standing may steer applause at home, I agree but it seldom changes minds abroad. What delivered results were clarity of purpose, legal consistency and diplomatic composure. No comparison with a diplomacy as in the past anchored in vulgarity if you still remember, tempestuousness under the previous regime. Fiery declarations may sound patriotic but unfortunately, does not yield results. What works is credibility and consistency as I mentioned. This is what brought our victory. Therefore, it is undeniable that the deal struct by the actual Government is far better than the one supposedly concluded by the previous regime although not perfect, I would agree. Diplomacy, as I mention very often, in international forums, is an art and a craft. So, from optics to outcomes, while previous approaches sought symbolical victories through domestic criminalisation, this Government pursued recognition, resolution and implementation. The treaty not only affirms sovereignty; it establishes frameworks for co-operation, very important, and environment, sustainable development and also what is important is the welfare of the Chagossians. So, this is the sort of diplomacy with the new government that delivers. We just not talk; we walk the talk. Now, I am here also to explain, to certain extent I agree that the Prime Minister mentioned there was possibly good intention when the law was passed but Madam Speaker, you will see that section 76B explicitly or implicitly try to cast, at that point in time, extra territorial shadows – punishing acts committed outside Mauritius by non-nationals for how they depicted our territory. And you know, as a small country, extra territorial law is rare, I would say a heavy tool, justified only for universally condemned offences, for example, terrorism, piracy, trafficking and also backed by strong international cooperation. For a small but respected state, laws with global pretensions are neither credible or enforceable. They invite, very often, legal fiction and distract from substantive statecraft. The idea that Mauritius could prosecute a publisher in a foreign capital for a map was at best, as I mentioned before, a symbolical posturing or, at worst, a legal absurdity. Sovereignty is secured by treaties and effective governance – this is what we did and this is what our hon. Prime Minister did –, not by unreachable criminal sanctions. Repeal also enables freedom, scholarship and confidence. Section 76B, at that point in time, cast a Damocles sword over legitimate actors, publishers, NGOs, academics, cartographers, and journalists. Unfortunately, even if there was good intention, you will see that ambiguity chilled discussion and research. As an ex-academic, I have always been championing academic freedom. With sovereignty now settled, we should encourage writers and scholars to analyse documents and critic this chapter of our history. There is nothing wrong to criticise the outcome of what we got, without fear and without criminal liability. That is what confidence looks like in a mature republic. For sure, we are a mature republic with this new Government now. So, that is the rule of law and proportionality. Another shortcoming you will see is, generally, criminal provisions must be clear, necessary and also enforceable. Unfortunately, when we analyse closely section 76B, it was vague. This has also been criticised by the Supreme Court in a landmark judgment and also the law by restoring discipline to our criminal code and reserving penal sanctions only for real harms, not for abstraction. Let me reassure the House, removing section 76B does not in any way weaken protection of national integrity. Existing offences already guard the republic, for example, fraud, forgery, sedition and the National Flag Act. So, these are balanced and enforceable, Madam Speaker. You will also see, Madam Speaker, that this repeal is only a sort of step number one. At this point, I would invite the SLO and the Office of the AG to start more technical work to amend other laws. I am just making some recommendations. We must redefine baselines around Chagos and update coordinates of our EEZ – very important to update coordinates of the new EEZ that we have – , redefine our continental shelf under UNCLOS and also to notify the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea accordingly. This is not mere cartography, Madam Speaker. It is the legal consolidation of our regained maritime space and resources. Regarding fisheries, as I mentioned, this is only a first step. We will have to align the Fisheries and Marine Resources Act and regulations to the new EEZ that we have. Also, what we have to do is update licensing for all vessels operating the Chagos waters, extend monitoring control and surveillance regarding Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU) and IUU enforcement, expand marine control and satellite surveillance, and file updated notifications within the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission – we know that the Deputy Prime Minister is doing a lot of work on that –, and relevant regional fisheries management organisations. So, Madam Speaker, we also have to look at other laws. For example, look at how we are going to deliver special visa and special work permit when it comes to the archipelagos with specific regulations for Chagos and Diego Garcia. Maybe there has to be a sort of co- management. I am just giving some recommendations. Madam Speaker, you will see that the Chagos Archipelago is among the world’s most pristine marine resources. Mainland environmental rules cannot simply be transplanted in the context of the Chagos Archipelago. I am sure my good friend, hon. Minister Rajesh Bhagwan and hon. Junior Minister Ms J. Bérenger, will look into the matter. We will need also, Madam Speaker, a special EIA regime. We must establish a special EIA framework with lower triggers, cumulative impact assessments and a dedicated Chagos environmental directorate for permitting and monitoring. We need also to redefine – I know that the British did it –, but we have to redefine the marine parks and NPAs with the gain of the Chagos Archipelagos. Regarding regional commitments, we must also mainstream our obligations, as I mentioned before, under the IOTC and the RFMOs, the Convention on Migratory Species and Migratory Flyways and advance SDG14, that is, Life Below Water. We also have to revisit trade, customs and port state control. So, what I want to convey, Madam Speaker, is that this is a first step. We have to commend the SLO, the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Attorney General for taking the initiative, but I am sure that lot of work remains to be done. I know that the hon. AG and his team at the SLO are working very hard. I have just been mentioning some of the laws and regulations which have to be amended in order to mainstream the content of the treaty and what we have gained from the historical treaty. Thank you for your attention, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, hon. Junior Minister. Those of you who have come to visit me must have noticed that I have gotten rid of the map where the BIOT was still on the big map. So, if you have one in your office, you should have a quick look and maybe get rid of the map. Make sure you get new ones! Thank you very much. Let us break for tea for half an hour. We will come back at 5 p.m. At 4.33 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.15 p.m., with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Please be seated. Yes, hon. Minister!

Thank you, Madam Speaker, as to other who have preceded me, I have listened very carefully to all the words that have been pronounced on this particular piece of proposed legislation. I was, therefore, duty-bound to go back to the Bill that was presented back on the 23rd of November 2021 when the then, hon. Prime Minister came to this House to present the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill (No. XVI of 2021). I have gone through the Hansard and I have noted therein that the background to this piece of legislation was what was being done in terms of Universal Postal Union – the issuing of coins, of stamps – but I went on further to see that this Bill has made specific provisions to render it criminal, the fact that this was being done under instructions from a foreign State. It is all well and good to come up with a piece of legislation but then all members in this House will have to reflect on something. The question is, and I will limit myself to a very short intervention where I will only comment on the legal aspect. What is the point of really coming forward with a piece of legislation as they did and bring a new Section 76B of the law when the enforceability of that law itself was in question? The first question to ask oneself is not only that and the second is how would that law have been enforced? So, how can one enforce criminal law of the Republic of Mauritius on another State, on another territory without the consent of the other State? When there is no international basis such as a treaty or even a mandate from the United Nations Security Council, that is the question. When I read all literature on this particular aspect, the first thing that comes up is: how would you have enforced the law? So, yes, true, they came up with a piece of legislation. Their aim was supposedly to instil the sort of threat to criminalise the right to free speech and expression. But when you analyse it, and this is what the literature says, is that the coin was not legal tender and the stamp was only a symbolical act. Therefore, the legality, therefore, the enforceability internationally of that piece of legislation, I always had very strong doubts about it. Second element: criminalising speech on symbolical issues such as I have said: coins or stamps clearly could have called for constitutional challenges under the Constitution of Mauritius that guarantees free expression. So, just typical of the former government, coming up with pieces of legislation and when we analyse history after this particular amendment was brought, another question – was there any action? The answer is no. Could there have been any action? I have put the question earlier and I do not believe there could have been. So, I have listened to the hon. Prime Minister who made a very, very important speech in that he talks about the importance of trusting our democracy and the importance of trusting Mauritians but also, I go further the importance of trusting our friends. That is the message of this particular amendment brings forward today. Another element that which I would like about is the fact that this debate is not about party politics. It has never been about party politics. It is about the nation. It is about sovereignty. It is about nation building. It is about preserving national integrity. This is all it is about but when one reads the speech of the former Prime Minister, he uses those words but the words he uses were empty because in fact when you read the concluding remarks of the hon. Prime Minister and the exchange he was having in this House – he was so much acting like the leader of a political party and could not in any way show that he was a statesman because he was not one. He was attacking the now hon. Deputy Prime Minister, he was refusing to set up a committee for us to work together on it – together, Opposition and Government – since it was a national debate. This is the attitude that was adopted by the former Prime Minister. Make the difference. Today, the actual hon. Prime Minister said this is how history has shown how every single political party in power has contributed. He explained how, where it started from. He went through history; he also made reference to the Late Sir Anerood Jugnauth. But the former government pretended as though the acted as though they were only ones who had anything to do with this issue, make it purely a political matter, a party- political matter when it was not. And now, I would like to conclude that that since it is a national issue where of the members of the PMSD and where is the hon. Leader of the Opposition? This is the debate about territorial integrity, sovereignty of our nation and as the hon. Prime Minister has said: all through the years, every political leader has stood up and stood firm and he developed a strategy and every step was important towards where we have reached today and when we look at the seats today – empty.

As usual!

But let me say, they have nothing to talk about on other issues or they not want to say on other issues. Can you imagine Madam Speaker, that they have nothing to say, today, when it comes to the sovereignty, the rights of our nation, territorial integrity – they have nothing to say? So, that is why I end on this because I would have wish that they could have been here. It would have been a pleasure to hear them share their views. Yes, I would have had to make an effort but I would have listened to them. We would have listened to them because it is important for posterity. What would the history books say on a day when this is being argued and debated? They had an opportunity of coming here. The Constitution gave them those seats, recognised their right to be here, but still, they have chosen not to be here. So, let the record show that when the time came to take position, to add their voice to the debate and to act as one people, they were absent. Thank you very much.

Thank you. hon. Minister! Yes, Deputy Prime Minister! (5.24 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, je tiens à saluer un très beau discours de l’honorable Premier ministre. Nous avons écouté attentivement il y a quelques instants et je tiens aussi à saluer ce que vient de dire mon collègue le ministre, Shakeel Mohamed. Il y a beaucoup de vérité dans les quelques mots, il n’a pas été long, exceptionnellement, mais il y a beaucoup de vérité dans ces quelques mots qu’il a utilisés. Je crois qu’il faut le dire la loi, cette nouvelle Section 76B du Criminal Code en 2021 visait aussi à faire peur, ici, à Maurice et à d’autres aussi. Ce n’est pas notre style, ce n’est pas notre façon de gouverner. Nous croyons dans le dialogue, dans la liberté d’expression et les gens ont le droit d’avoir des opinions mêmes si elles sont mauvaises mais qu’il faut respecter. Je le répète ce morceau de loi de 2021 visait aussi – j’ai presque envie de dire surtout mais visait aussi – à faire peur. Et comme l’a dit mon collègue, le l’honorable ministre, Shakeel Mohamed. C’était clair dès le début, nous n’avons pas voté contre, nous avons poke holes all over the place dans cette loi-là en 2021 parce que nous avons quel genre de campagne ils auraient déclenché si nous avions dit – ce que vient de dire l’honorable ministre, Shakeel Mohamed. C’était tellement évident, dès le départ que c’était inapplicable, que le but n’était pas d’appliquer cette loi-là. L’idée c’était de faire du bruit, de faire de la propagande et de faire peur. C’était, dès le départ, inapplicable. Et c’est pourquoi il n’y a jamais eu de poursuite, il n’y a jamais eu de case basée sur cette loi parce que c’était inapplicable. Le but n’était pas d’appliquer la loi, d’avoir une loi, c’était de faire du bruit, de faire peur. Mais, je crois que c’est là aussi l’explication de leur absence. C’est vrai qu’ils sont tout le temps absent, mais dans ce cas-là, franchement ! Quand nous approuvé le texte de loi dans la dernière séance, j’étais persuadé que quand même ce qu’il leur reste de vie politique, allait se manifester, qu’ils allaient s’agiter. Zéro pendant tout le weekend ! Zéro, et aujourd’hui, double zéro. Les deux ne sont pas là. C’est éloquent que l’intention était politique, politicienne, politicaille, mais c’est honteux. C’est franchement honteux pour un pays démocratique, respectable comme l’île Maurice. Seulement, ce qui est aussi vrai, c’est cette campagne hystérique de la droite en Grande Bretagne. Cela c’est du réel. Aucun pays aujourd’hui ne conteste la souveraineté de l’île Maurice sur les Chagos, mais j’ai rarement vu une campagne hystérique comme celle qui se déroule depuis des semaines déjà et qu’au lieu de diminuer – non, mais quand on pense aux insanités, aux imbécilités que la droite britannique déblatère tous les jours, et en passant, en contradiction totale avec Trump, leur idole ! C’est leur idole. Moi j’avais craint à un moment donné que Trump ne fasse objection à l’accord que nous avons finalement conclu avec la Grand Bretagne. Mais non, et eux aujourd’hui, mènent une campagne hystérique et se servent de ce bout de loi inapplicable dont l’intention n’avait jamais été d’être appliquée par le gouvernement MSM. Mais, aujourd’hui la droite en Grande Bretagne se sert à fond de ce morceau de loi. C’est pourquoi c’est bon qu’on repeal, qu’on retire ce morceau de loi de notre arsenal légal. Cela ne va pas arrêter l’hystérie de ces messieurs, mesdames aussi de droite, de Grande Bretagne. Là c’est quelque chose ça ! Il y a une course pour savoir des mesdames ou messieurs réactionnaires qui sont les plus hystériques dans cette affaire. Ils vont continuer, mais au moins on leur retire un argument dont ils se servent. Mais moi, Madam Speaker, ce qui m’attriste aussi c’est qu’il y a quelques chagossiens/chagossiennes qui jouent le jeu de l’hystérie. C’est triste quand je pense à un jeune homme, un jeune chagossien qui été recruté dans la police mauricienne, qui a réussi ses examens. Il été policier dans notre système. Il démissionne, il part pour aller dire qu’il est persécuté à Maurice, pour se servir de ce morceau de loi pour dire que voilà, on terrorise les chagossiens et les chagossiennes à l’île Maurice. Fausseté complète et il est bon que nous retirons ce morceau de loi de notre arsenal juridique, légal, parce que ça donne prétexte aux hystériques de Grande Bretagne, mais aussi aux quelques chagossiens/chagossiennes de mauvaise foi de mener le genre de campagne qu’ils sont en train de mener. Donc, en mai 2025, quand l’accord a été signé et nous revenons de loin, parce que franchement moi quand nous avons négocié, quand nous avons finalisé cet accord avec la Grande Bretagne, ce n’était pas gagné d’avance dans le contexte international de ce moment- là et qui dure, et qui est encore avec nous. Nous avons le droit d’être fiers. Nous avons eu à faire certaines concessions, oui, parce que nous vivons dans un monde réel, un monde difficile, très difficile. Mais aujourd’hui, c’est chose faite, ça se discute encore à Londres, mais les choses finiront par se passer comme elles doivent se passer. Mais, c’est difficile aujourd’hui de ne pas comprendre le contexte dans lequel nous avons travaillé. Il faut comprendre ce contexte dans lequel on a conclu cet accord avec la Grande Bretagne. Donc, depuis qu’il y a cet accord, il n’y a plus de raison d’être de ce morceau de loi. Il y a des raisons de retirer ce morceau de loi parce que ça donne des armes aux hystériques et aux gens de mauvaise foi. Mais aujourd’hui, il n’y a plus de raison d’être, et c’est pourquoi il est bon pour une première occasion aujourd’hui qu’on retire cette nouvelle section 76B qui est restée lettre morte depuis qu’elle a été votée en 2021. C’est pourquoi il est bon qu’il y ait l’unanimité dans le Parlement. L’absence de l’Opposition est plus que regrettable, condamnable comme toujours, mais nous, face à l’histoire encore une fois, nous faisons notre devoir. Je dois dire que j’aimerais conclure en revenant sur ce que le MMM a réussi en deux occasions. Avant mais surtout après les élections de 1976. C’est le MMM – je ne dis pas ça avec une grosse tête, mais l’histoire nous regarde – qui après les élections de 1976, comme l’a dit le Premier ministre, a mis l’affaire Chagos, Diego Garcia, la question de souveraineté à l’ordre du jour : local et international. Bien d’autres se sont joints à ce combat, bravo et nous, au MMM, nous avons le droit d’être fiers de cela. Et moi je suis personnellement – à chaque occasion je le rappelle – fier d’avoir aussi mis Tromelin à l’ordre du jour. La petite île Tromelin qu’il nous reste à retrouver. La petite île Tromelin était considérée comme une des îles éparses françaises, s’il vous plaît. J’ai fait mes recherches, j’ai été fouiller dans l’histoire et franchement jusqu’au aujourd’hui je ne comprends pas comment j’ai réussi à aller à Tananarive – j’étais simple député, secrétaire général du MMM – de m’entretenir avec le président malgache de l’époque Ratsiraka et d’obtenir de lui qu’à partir de cette date de 1978, Madagascar cesse de revendiquer Tromelin, continue de revendiquer les quatre autres îles dites éparses et ils appuient notre revendication, nous appuyons leurs revendications. Je ne me souviens pas vraiment comment j’ai réussi ça, mais c’est pourquoi ce n’est pas seulement parce que Madagascar est un pays peuplement de l’île Maurice, mais c’est un voisin, c’est un pays frère ou sœur ou les deux. C’est pourquoi nous avons droit au MMM – d’autres aussi – mais nous avons droit au MMM d’être fiers de ce que nous avons fait concernant les Chagos et Diego Garcia, la souveraineté de l’île Maurice sur les Chagos et j’espère que le temps viendra aussi vite que possible où nous retrouverons notre souveraineté sur la petite île, le petit morceau de sable Tromelin et qui a toute son importance dans le cadre de notre histoire. Encore une fois, je félicite le Premier ministre pour son discours et je remercie tous ceux qui sont présents aujourd’hui pour faire notre devoir vis-à-vis de notre histoire. Merci, Madame la présidente.

Yes, hon. Prime Minister! (5.34 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank all those who participated in the debate, and are also present here – hon. Narsinghen, hon. Mohamed, the Deputy Prime Minister. Again, I also regret that the two Members of the Opposition have chosen not to be here, as usual, even though as hon. Shakeel Mohamed said, it is a non- partisan Bill. As the DPM and hon. Mohamed also said, they made it a partisan issue as if they owned the monopoly to defend our claim for the sovereignty of Chagos. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, and he is right, the law was there à faire peur. It was not enforceable as you rightly said – not enforceable. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Who has been sued? Nobody! Just a law, blahblahblah, and again as the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out – it is good that he pointed out – lots of propaganda, falsities, fake news are being propagated in the House of Commons, the Reform Party, especially from Nigel Farage. The latest thing they invented – that we are discussing with China for leasing Peros Banhos. Where did he get this information from? God knows! I think the hon. Attorney General rightly went on the MBC to forcefully deny this, and this was taken up in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, hon. Starmer. It is also true – I did not know this little bit – that the Deputy Prime Minister said that the young Chagossian who went for interview was accepted as a Police Officer in our Police Force, who now says he was persecuted in Mauritius. It is so blatant that you cannot even believe you are hearing this! This law, as all the hon. Members have said, is now caduc. There is no raison d’être. Section 76B has no raison d’être because there is no country in the world, internationally, or the UK or anyone else, claiming or has doubt about our sovereignty on the whole of the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. With these words, I commend the Bill to the House.

Thank you. Just for the sake of clarity, may I draw everybody’s attention to Section 111 of the Constitution on the definition of Mauritius, which I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister will remember, that all the islands, including Tromelin, Chagos, everything was in there, and it says – “(d) such places or areas as may be designated by regulations made by the Prime Minister, rights over which are or may become exercisable by Mauritius;” Very interesting piece! Do you agree, hon. Attorney General?

I do!

Thank you. That was the summing up. So, the debate is over. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) THE CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL (No. XXVI of 2025) The Criminal Code (Amendment No. 2) Bill (No. XXVI 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 No. 2) Bill (No. XXVI of 2025) was read a third time and passed. Second Reading THE COURT OF RODRIGUES JURISDICTION (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. XXV of 2025) Order for Second Reading read. (5.42 p.m.) The Attorney General (Mr G. P. C. Glover, SC): Madam Speaker, I move that the Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill be read a second time. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill. Its purpose is straightforward: it is to ensure that the jurisdiction and protective powers provided under the Children’s Court Act 2020 can be exercised directly in Rodrigues without requiring children and families to travel to Mauritius for matters that concern their wellbeing. This amendment reflects something very simple and practical. Rodrigues is part of our republic. The children of Rodrigues deserve the same access to protection and justice as children in Mauritius without added hurdles, delays or unnecessary travel. Today, when a case involves a vulnerable or a child witness, proceedings too often require travel to Mauritius. That is difficult for families and service providers, and in urgent matters, it can compromise child protection itself. As set out in Section 5 of the Children’s Court Act as it currently stands, the Protection Division of the Children’s Court ensures that matters affecting the safety and wellbeing of children must be dealt with swiftly and with a full authority of the law. It has clear jurisdiction to hear applications for protective measures under Part IV of the Act with magistrates designated for this crucial role. Its orders are enforceable as civil judgments, and appeals may be brought before a Judge in Chambers with guardian ad litem appointed where necessary to safeguard the child’s best interest throughout the process. In other words, Madam Speaker, as you personally know very well, the powers of the Protection Division of the Children’s Court are of extreme importance. They cover the full protection pathway for children in need as per Part IV of the Act, which defines when a child requires care and protection, whether it be abandonment, neglect, exploitation or exposure to harm. It empowers Police to intervene urgently and authorise officers to make assessments, access premises and take immediate steps in the children’s best interests. And importantly, it makes reporting of children in danger mandatory with confidentiality safeguards. Part IV of the Children’s Act provides for court ordered measures, emergency protection orders followed by placement orders with social enquiry reports and renewals within set limits and ancillary orders such as supervision, counselling, medical care and restrictions on contact. For longer horizons, the court may issue long term care orders and regulate contact through contact orders always guided by the child’s best interest and wishes. Finally, it addresses serious behavioural concerns through preventive intervention orders and establishes a structured Child Mentoring Scheme, monitored by the authorities. By extending these powers to the magistrate for Rodrigues, this Bill ensures that such sensitive cases can be heard and resolved closer to where those families live. It strengthens the ability of social workers, Police Officers and medical professionals on the island to act promptly and effectively in the best interest of children. Madam Speaker, it is important to recall that this measure does not change the structure of our judiciary. The Court of Rodrigues remains part of the National Judicial System of the Republic of Mauritius and remains handled by the same Judicial Administration, the same standards and the same legal safeguards. This Bill does not devolve judicial authority; it merely brings existing national protections within easier reach of residents of Rodrigues. Government will continue strengthening operational capacity in Rodrigues where the Judiciary requires it, including better facilities, improved coordination with child protection agencies and the right support for magistrates and court staff handling these sensitive matters. No child, Madam Speaker, should be left with the impression that justice lies only across the sea. Justice must be accessible, timely and visible. Madam Speaker, this Bill brings more logic and convenience to the way we serve Rodrigues families: it reduces delays, it strengthens child protection and it brings our Republic’s justice system closer to those who need it where they need it. Access to justice, as I always say. I, therefore, commend this Bill to the House. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded.

Thank you. Now, we have Ms Henriette-Manan, please! (5.48 p.m.) Ms D. Henriette-Manan (Third Member for Rodrigues): Merci, Madame la présidente. Merci de me donner l’opportunité de m’adresser à la Chambre sur ce projet de loi qui concerne les enfants de Rodrigues. La discrimination, l’injustice, l’inégalité, ce sont des mots qui résonnent trop souvent encore dans les sphères législatives et judiciaires de Rodrigues. Et pourtant, ces mots ne devraient pas faire partie du vocabulaire quotidien d’une république qui se veut juste, équitable et unie. Je ne cesserai jamais de le dire haut et fort : l’autonomie de Rodrigues ne doit en aucun cas servir de prétexte pour tolérer des inégalités de traitement entre les citoyens d’une même république. Cette autonomie de Rodrigues, dont nous venons tout récemment de commémorer le 23eme anniversaire, doit être respectée, doit être consolidée et pleinement valorisée. C’est précisément dans cet esprit que s’inscrit le Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill que nous examinons aujourd’hui. Cet amendement vient corriger un déséquilibre, combler un retard et surtout affirmer un principe d’égalité entre les enfants de la république, qu’ils vivent à Maurice ou à Rodrigues. Rappelons-le, la loi de 2020, sur les tribunaux pour enfants a instauré des juridictions spécialisées comprenant deux divisions distinctes : la division de la protection et la division criminelle. Cette réforme, votée à Maurice en 2020, a marqué un tournant décisif pour la justice juvénile dans notre pays mais à Rodrigues, cette réforme a mis cinq longues années à trouver son prolongement naturel – cinq ans, Madame la présidente. On croirait encore être à l’époque où les décrets voyageaient en bateau et arrivaient avec retard.

Ou par pigeon voyageur, peut-être ?

Ou par pigeon voyageur, voilà ! Bravo aux magistrats, aux officiers et aux personnels judiciaires de Rodrigues qui pendant ce temps ont continué à faire leur devoir, souvent dans un cadre légal inadapté et surtout avec les moyens du bord. Cet amendement vient donc mettre de l’ordre, donner une base légale solide et inscrire Rodrigues dans une approche nationale cohérente de la protection de l’enfance. En apparence technique, cet amendement porte en réalité un message fort, celui de l’unité de la république de Maurice et du respect égal des droits de tous ces enfants, qu’ils vivent à Maurice, à Rodrigues ou demain, dans les autres îles de la république. Tous nos enfants doivent bénéficier des mêmes garanties de justice, de dignité et de protection. Je salue donc cette mesure qui arrive certes tardivement, mais qui est accueillie favorablement par la population judiciaire de l’île. De plus, elle intervient à un moment décisif dans un contexte de modernisation, la rénovation complète du Rodrigues Court House, réalisée au coût de R 7 millions, financée par l’assemblée régionale Rodrigues. Je tiens donc ici à féliciter le Chef commissaire et son équipe pour leur vision et leur engagement dans cette entreprise essentielle. Grâce à cette rénovation, le bâtiment, restait inchangé pendant plus de 25 ans, répond enfin aux besoins d’une justice moderne, humaine et inclusive. Aujourd’hui, nous disposons d’une salle spécialement adaptée aux enfants, offrant un environnement plus serein et rassurant. D’une salle de vidéoconférence qui permet aux jeunes victimes de témoigner sans devoir affronter directement leur agresseur, une avancée majeure en matière de respect, de dignité et de bien-être des enfants. C’est là une étape importante dans la construction d’une justice qui met l’humain au centre, qui comprend les fragilités et les besoins les plus vulnérables. Mais, Madame la présidente, nous ne devons pas nous arrêter en si bon chemin. Le progrès appelle la continuité. Il nous manque encore certaines infrastructures essentielles, à commencer par un children’s play area, un espace d’accueil et de réconfort pour les enfants avant ou après leur comparution. L’espace existe déjà. Il ne manque que la volonté budgétaire pour le concrétiser. Nous devons aussi veiller à doter la cour de psychologues qualifiés, capable d’accompagner les enfants tout au long du processus judiciaire et d’un Probation Officer, chargé du suivi des rapports sociaux et des recommandations dans l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant. Ce sont là des éléments essentiels pour rendre notre justice vraiment adaptée à la réalité des enfants. Cet amendement vient combler des lacunes oui, mais il doit aussi ouvrir la voie à une réflexion plus globale sur la justice juvénile à Rodrigues. Trop souvent encore des familles rodriguaise vivent des drames judiciaires silencieux comme l’a mentionné l’Attorney General. Celui de voir leur enfant transféré à Maurice, loin de leurs proches, simplement parce que Rodrigues ne dispose pas des infrastructures nécessaires. Ces enfants déjà fragilisés se retrouvent isolés, coupés de leurs repères affectifs et culturels et il faut le dire, sans détour, certains reviennent brisés, perdus, parfois transformés en délinquants aguerris. La république ne devrait pas accepter cela car un enfant, qu’il soit né à Port Mathurin ou à Port-Louis, reste un enfant de la république et méritent la même attention, la même protection et la même dignité. Permettez-moi, Madame la présidente, d’insister sur un point essentiel ? Cet amendement aussi louable soit-il ne constitue qu’une première étape. Le Children’s Act 2020 lui-même doit être amendé afin d’inclure pleinement Rodrigues. En effet, la section 8 de cette loi, qui établit la composition du National Children’s Panel, mentionne plusieurs ministères et institutions nationales mais omet de prévoir la représentation de Rodrigues. C’est là une omission regrettable qu’il convient de corriger rapidement car comment pouvons-nous parler d’un système véritablement national de protection de l’enfance si Rodrigues n’a pas de voix au chapitre ? Une république unie ne peut tolérer des zones d’ombre dans la représentation de ses territoires. Je tiens aussi à saluer le travail remarquable de la commissaire de la Famille à Rodrigues qui œuvre pour régulariser le Child Mentoring Committee sur l’île en conformité avec la section 44 du Children’s Act 2020. Cette initiative témoigne d’une volonté claire de régulariser et d’implanter localement les structures prévues par la loi. Je l’encourage vivement à poursuivre dans cette voie car c’est à travers ce genre d’action concrète que les textes prennent vie, que les promesses deviennent réalités. Madame la présidente, les lois à elles seules ne changent pas le destin des enfants. Elles doivent s’accompagner de structures solides, de professionnels formés et d’un engagement collectif. La justice ne doit pas seulement être rendue, elle doit aussi être comprise, vécue et ressentie par ceux qu’elle protège. Madame la présidente, le regard que nous portons sur nos enfants est le reflet du pays que nous voulons demain. En protégeant nos enfants, en leur garantissant un traitement juste, digne et équitable, nous consolidons les fondations mêmes de notre République. Cet amendement n’est donc pas un simple texte administratif, c’est un engagement moral et républicain envers Rodrigues, envers la justice et surtout envers nos enfants – ces citoyens de demain. Je veux croire que ce texte marquera un tournant, qu’il ouvrira la voie à un air où la justice à Rodrigue ne sera plus perçue comme une copie tardive de celle de Maurice mais comme une institution forte, respectée et pleinement intégrée à la république. Je veux croire que chaque enfant Rodriguais, quel que soit son parcours, pourra trouver auprès de la justice, une main tendue, un regard bienveillant et une chance de se reconstruire. Et pour marquer la journée internationale de la langue et culture Kreol, permettez-moi, Madame la présidente, de cité ce proverbe Africain en Kreol – « Sak zefor ki nou fer pou protez ek respekte drwa zenfan se enn pa ki nou fer pou enn lemond pli zoli. » Par ces mots, Madame la présidente, je soutiens pleinement Le Court Of Rodrigues Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill. Je le fais au nom de la justice, de l’égalité et de la dignité de tous nos enfants de la République. Je vous remercie.

Thank you. Je vous pose juste une question, Vous avez bien dit que vous avez le video evidence dans votre tribunal ?

Video conferencing.

J’aimerai savoir si on a la même chose à Maurice. Je ne suis pas très sûre. C’est nouveau alors. Allez, vas-y, hon. Member. (5.58 p.m.) Mr J. F. François (Second Member for Rodrigues): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me congratulate my colleague from Rodrigues for her intervention. Madam Speaker, the Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction Act dates back to 1913. The present Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill (No. XXV of 2025) marks an essential milestone in this long journey. As indicated in the Explanatory Note, this Bill amends section 2 and 12 of the Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction Act. The object of the Bill is to extend the application of Children’s Court Act 2020 to Rodrigues. Consequently, the magistrate for Rodrigues will now have jurisdiction to hear and determine cases which, in Mauritius, fall within the purview of the Protection Division and the Criminal Division of the Children’s Court. Madam Speaker, on 06 May this year, I addressed PQB/423 to the hon. Attorney General, asking whether in relation to the Children’s Court, he could obtain from the Master and Registrar the number of sessions held in Rodrigues, the number of cases heard and whether consideration will be given to establishing such a court in Rodrigues. In the absence of the hon. Attorney General, Mr Glover, the Ag. Attorney General, hon. Shakeel Mohamed, replied and I quote – “In regard to the specialised nature and jurisdiction of the Children’s Court, consideration may be given for the establishment thereof in Rodrigues. Accordingly, Government will act in consultation with the honourable Chief Justice for any decision to be taken thereof.” Madam Speaker, I commend the tangible outcome and timely efforts of the Attorney General and his dedicated officers for their rapidity of action. This Bill symbolises a collective judicial and governments, Rodrigues and Mauritius, commitment to the safety and well-being of all children in our Republic and more particularly in Rodrigues. The specialised Children’s Court will surely recognise the physical, emotional, developmental needs of children and ensures that the judicial process itself does not further traumatise them. Until now, the Court of Rodrigues, an adult-oriented court, includes a child- friendly model, a Family Juvenile Unit which serves as a mini–Children’s Court in principle, inaugurated in 2016 under the initiative of the former magistrate, Pareemala Devi Mauree. Madam Speaker, I wish to sincerely commend, her honour Magistrate Mauree, for her visionary leadership and pioneering work in establishing this unique model in collaboration with the probation office of the Regional Assembly. The creation of the unit was a response to the Human Rights Commission’s 2015 remarks, highlighting the absence of reformatory institutions, probation homes and detention centres for minors as well as the rise in sexual offences involving minors and delays in bringing juvenile cases to justice. I note that the Chief Justice inaugurated the New Children Court Unit during his last visit in Rodrigues in August this year. Madam Speaker, from societal values, perspectives it is worth noting that our children in Rodrigues generally do not display high levels of criminal behaviour. This is important for the judiciary to safeguard them from the lifelong stigma associated with a criminal record. Madam Speaker, statistics from Rodrigues reveals that there are around 52 cases for the last three years for emergency protection order for child with severe behavioural concerns and placement on long-term order. Criminal cases for child victims of sexual abuse: 20 cases and juvenile offenders around 12 cases. Madam Speaker, for a Children Court to function effectively, it must be equipped with the right tools particularly access to therapeutic and support services for families and children there. The House will recall that during my intervention on the Children’s Court and Sex Offender Register Bill in 2020, I highlighted the need for facilities of the Rodrigues Family Juvenile Court Unit such as video conferencing, digital recording, a children’s play area, a small library, the witness room in the court to be linked with the court room and materials on children protection for professionals to be made available. I also stress on the importance of child-friendly procedures including CCTV cameras to protect children who are victims and witnesses or offenders. At present, Madam Speaker, in relation to sentencing a minor in Rodrigues, Rodrigues has a Rehabilitation Youth Centre (RYC) Girls with no inmates actually, which is good and a shelter for boys, le Foyer Roseaux not registered yet, hon. Attorney General, no Correctional Youth Centre, no probation homes or hostel and the transit homes requiring major upgrading and other facilities, no trained and qualified rehabilitation officers. Instead, they are relying on prison officers. There is a safe residential care institution for children at the Foyer Marie- Madeleine Delacroix at Baladirou accompanying around 30 children for their reintegration into family and normal life. Madam Speaker, there remains an urgent need for a proper probation home in Rodrigues for children with severe behavioural problems as many at risk children come from broken and vulnerable families. I note that the law is silent as there is no provision for cases where juvenile with severe problems can’t be placed in institutions like probation home or hostel. My question is – what to do with them? There is a silence in the law around this point. Actually, minors from Rodrigues, rightly said by hon. Ms Manan and the hon. Attorney General as well, are being transferred to Mauritius CYC. I believe there is a constitutional right problem being deprived of visits by close relatives. And in line with Rule 16 of Beijing rules and Children Act 2020, a dedicated clinical psychologist must assist the Children Court, the probation and aftercare service. At present, Rodrigues has only one clinical psychologist despite increasing demand of the service. Madam Speaker, the Ombudsperson for Children, Mrs Aneeta Goorah, has highlighted a few major challenges for Rodrigues in relation to children in her annual report 2024-2025, requiring our urgent attention. I note with concern, for childcare and maternal parenting in Rodrigues, of the non-renewal, since 2022, of 20 garderies licences. There is only one registered garderie, and you can imagine the bearing with regard to children care and maternal parenting. I, therefore, urge the local authority, with due respect to our autonomy, in particular the Commission for Child Development, to play an active rehabilitative role for child victims of sexual offences, domestic violence and offenders alike. Madam Speaker, on a word of caution, the establishment of this Children’s Unit or Children’s Court in Rodrigues must not be seen as an échappatoire or weakening parental authority thereat. It must instead promote a shared responsibility among families, the community and the State at large. Many cases involving children in Rodrigues arise directly from poverty, the lack of food, shelter, property housing and a safe family environment. As we say, enn fami, nou bann zanfan bizin ena enn bon lakaz, bizin ena enn bon lanvironnman pou zot grandi. This is precisely where, Madam Speaker, given that in Rodrigues, since 2022, not a single concrete social housing has been constructed, I will continue to press on Rodrigues Regional Authority to urgently implement the long overdue housing scheme project for the benefit of vulnerable families and our children. Madam Speaker, before concluding, allow me to make some proposals in relation to this Bill for the benefit of all children in our Republic. During some researches on the children’s court in other jurisdictions, I observed that despite the constitutional rights provided to individuals under Section 3 of our Constitution and the progressive provisions of the Children’s Court Act 2020, there remains a need to include specific constitutional clauses that clearly define and elaborate the rights of every child in our Republic. I firmly believe that such inclusion would ensure greater clarity and the application of rights and fundamental freedom for our children. This would align our Constitution more closely to the core principle of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Madam Speaker, for instance, the only explicit constitutional reference to our children currently appears only under Section 14, Protection of freedom to establish schools, sub clause (3) which merely provides that no person shall be prevented from sending a child to any school. That is the only one – Section 14. Despite existing legislative provisions, I believe that constitutional guarantees for our children should be consolidated under one specific article in our Constitution. Let me just come to my proposals. For instance, in addition to free compulsory education, basic nutrition, shelter and healthcare, every child should have a right –  to be protected from abuse, violence, exploitation, inhuman treatment, punishment;  to parental care and protection;  not to be detained except as a measure of last resort, and when detained, to be held for the shortest appropriate, amongst others. I am, therefore, convinced that it is necessary to amend and entrench specific additional constitutional protection for children, as is the case in several African and European countries such as Ghana, Kenya, Sweden, South Africa, Canada, India, Germany, and Italy. Madam Speaker, the judiciary, while establishing this more child friendly court, shall also ensure sensitive training for magistrate and court staff in Rodrigues. I trust that the honourable Chief Justice, in future judicial assignments, will take into consideration a magistrate’s experience and understanding of Rodrigues social realities, child welfare and family needs. Furthermore, in collaboration with the Rodrigues Regional Assembly, collaboration must continue –  to recruit additional Probation Officers, psychologists, as I mentioned, as the existing Probation Unit remains understaffed;  to recruit associated human resources and provide necessary training to implement, for example, Madam Speaker, the Diversion Programme under Section 56 of Children’s Act. It is not being implemented. They do not have the necessary staff. Let me also propose, Madam Speaker, that either the Ombudsperson for Children or any relevant institution undertake shortly a study in Rodrigues to examine how children express their voices and wishes during court proceedings with a view to improve the system. On a final note, Madam Speaker, on today’s Order Paper of the Regional Assembly’s sitting, there was mention of a Motion standing in the name of the Commissioner for Child Development, proposing the Rodrigues Regional Assembly (Child Mentoring) Regulations 2025, thus repealing the 2014 regulation, which finally has been removed. I believe it is a good move by the hon. Commissioner to have removed that motion. Indeed, it is a welcomed initiative, pending the enactment of this Bill. Madam Speaker, with these words, I support the Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill (No. XXV of 2025). I thank you for your kind attention as always.

Are you surprised that I am interested in these matters?

I know why.

Actually, I will refer you to Section 11 of the Constitution, about one of the rights where children or minors are mentioned. Minors are not mentioned often in the Constitution, but that was a very tall order. Maybe the Attorney General and the Minister will be able to reply. Very interesting. Now, I think I have hon. Narsinghen. You are going to say a few words. Maybe you can help us. (6.13 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr H. Narsinghen): Yes, a few words, Madam Speaker.

A few legal words as well.

I can fully understand the zeal of my two friends from Rodrigues, but also, I cannot understand, again, at the cost of maybe saying the same thing, how our two friends from the Opposition are not present. This amendment may seem not to be important for them at least, but I consider it to be very important. Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Constitution, you have multiple approaches, and I have been explaining these approaches to my students. My approach has always been to take the generous approach in the interpretation of the Constitution. When this law was passed in 2020, when it was not extended to our children in Rodrigues, this potentially could be a breach of Section 3 and Section 16 of the Constitution, besides the section you mentioned. Why? Because when you analyse closely, when you scrutinise Section 3 and Section 16 of the Constitution, you will find out that one of the grounds for discrimination is also place of origin. So, according to me, potentially, this was a clear, stark breach of the Constitution. This is the first point. Secondly, since I do not want to hammer on certain points, as I did previously on section 76B of the Criminal Code, I want to explain to the population that we, as a democratic State, also have an obligation to comply with our international obligations. You will understand that, in a way, we are implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Not only the UN Convention, ladies and gentlemen, but we are also implementing the African Charter. Very often, in human rights, we tend to forget the existence of the African Charter. So, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child is very important. One of the cardinal principles entrenched in the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child is the principle of the best interest of the child principle. This principle has been onboarded by the legislation that we have in Mauritius. Let me briefly refer to section 12 of the legislation, that is, the Children’s Court Act. You will see a number of adaptions are being made in Section 12. I will just mention two for the sake of time. For example, the Court shall ensure that appropriate arrangements are made to the courtroom to hear the child’s evidence. Here, we are referring to the child evidence. For the child to be accompanied by his parents unless the Court designates another person to company the child. Also, you will see, there have been special adaptations made, for example, to the use of video links, etc. So, these special adaptations, Madam Speaker, have been made in the law and children in Mauritius, right from Soulliac to Cap Malheureux, have benefiting from that piece of legislation. Unfortunately, children in Rodrigues have not been able to benefit from such adaptations. So, I think we have to commend the hon. Attorney General and his team, after at least five years, to come up with this piece of legislation to redress the situation. They have to be commended for that. You will see, Madam Speaker, in very practical terms, what does it implicate for the parents especially in Rodrigues. It would mean that there would be less travelling; it would implicate that this will cost less for the families and also for social workers, because when there is a case involving children, we do not only need magistrates, we also need social workers, psychologists and people who know the realities of Rodrigues. So, when the case is being heard in Rodrigues itself and whereby, we have extended the jurisdiction of the Court of Rodrigues, I think, this is a significant progress that we have made. Also, there are very important principle – which I would call a sort of super- constitutional principle – the principle of access to justice. We cannot give justice to parents in Mauritius, to the children in Mauritius and not to the children in Rodrigues. So, I think, we have made what would I qualify as a sort of quantum leap in terms of democratising the system, in terms of giving justice to the people of Rodrigues. So, I would strongly commend the Bill. Thank you for your attention, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Yes! Hon. Minister. (6.19 p.m.)

Merci, Madame la présidente. Madame la présidente, je suis fière aujourd’hui de prendre la parole sur ce projet d’amendement. The Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill (No.XXV of 2025) en apparence anodin mais ô combien fondamentale car ce projet de loi représente une avancée majeure dans le paysage du judiciaire à Rodrigues. En effet, ce projet d’amendement présenté par mon collègue l’Attorney General bien que concis dans sa forme revêt une importance capitale pour les enfants et les familles de Rodrigues. Madame la présidente, ce texte de loi comme indiqué par mon collègue l’Attorney General, vise à amender la loi sur la juridiction du tribunal de Rodrigues afin d’y étendre l’application du Children’s Court Act de 2020. Je dois affirmer que ce projet était tant attendu. Lors de mes rencontres avec la Commissaire des affaires féminines à Rodrigues de même qu’avec la minority leader lorsqu’elles sont à Maurice ou même lors de ma mission à Rodrigues le mois dernier, m’ont fait toutes les deux parts de leurs concerns sur la question. Madame la présidente, la Chambre se souviendra qu’en 2020 l’adoption du Children’s Court Act avait permis d’établir un tribunal spécialisé pour les affaires impliquant des enfants en besoins de protection ou en conflit avec la loi. Le Children’s Court Act avait dans son sillage institué deux divisions essentielles dans son application notamment, la Protection Division qui traite des questions de bien-être, de garde et de protection des enfants sous le Children’s Act de 2020 et la Criminal Division qui traite des infractions notamment, d’abus sexuels commis sur les enfants ou des délits dans lesquels des mineurs sont impliqués. Cependant, Madame la présidente, jusqu’à présent la juridiction du tribunal pour enfants ne s’applique qu’à Maurice. En novembre 2020, lors de mon intervention sur un projet de loi, the Children’s Court Bill, je disais que les objectifs étaient un bon départ. Oui, c’était un bon départ, mais il était non seulement nécessaire d’aller plus loin. Hormis de Children’s Court qui fait partie de Children’s Act de 2020, il est important de revoir toute la législation concernant les enfants car elle comporte des lacunes. Je peux assurer la Chambre que mon ministère est actuellement en consultation avec le State Law Office pour revoir tout le Children’s Act pour une meilleure protection de tous les enfants de la république et bien sûre, tout sera fait en consultation avec nos sœurs et frères de Rodrigues. Madame la présidente, je dois dire que cinq ans après, c’est ce gouvernement qui prend les mesures pour avancer. Jusqu’à ici, les affaires concernant les enfants à Rodrigues devait soit être transférées à Maurice avec toutes les complications logistiques et émotionnelles que cela implique soit être traitées dans le cadre de juridictions ordinaires sans bénéficier des procédures spécifiques et protectrices prévues par le Children’s Court Act. Durant ma récente visite à Rodrigues, j’ai posé la question sur le fonctionnement de la Cour pour les enfants et je compris que c’était le système D – de l’improvisation. Ce présent amendement garanti désormais que les enfants de Rodrigues auront le même accès à une justice spécialisée et bienveillante que les enfants vivant à Maurice et vient ainsi corriger une inégalité. Madame la présidente, je voudrais saluer le travail de l’Attorney General qui depuis sa prise de fonction s’est donné pour mission de corriger au fur et à mesure les anomalies qui existent dans un certain nombre de textes de loi. Les amendements apportés à ce présent texte de loi vont dans ce sens. En effet, ce texte comporte deux dispositions majeures – dans la première disposition la clause 3 modifie l’article 2 de la loi principale afin d’y insérer une référence au Children’s Court Act de 2020. Cet amendement permet d’intégrer officiellement le cadre juridique du tribunal pour enfants dans le système judiciaire de Rodrigues. Dans la seconde disposition, la clause 4, remplace le paragraphe 1 de l’article 12, toujours de la loi principale, pour que le magistrat à Rodrigues puisse juger les affaires qui à Maurice relèveraient de la Protection Division ou de la Criminal Division du tribunal pour enfants. En d’autres termes, Madame la présidente, le magistrat de Rodrigues exercera désormais les mêmes pouvoirs et compétences qu’un magistrat du tribunal pour enfants à Maurice. En étendant la juridiction du tribunal pour enfants à Rodrigues, nous faisons un pas décisif vers une justice équitable et accessible pour tous les enfants de la République. Les enfants de Rodrigues, victimes de maltraitance, de négligence, d’abus sexuel ou d’exploitation, verront les affaires les concernant traitées sur place dans des délais raisonnables et dans un environnement adapté à leur âge et à leur sensibilité. De la même manière, les jeunes en conflit avec la loi, bénéficieront d’un accompagnement éducatif et de réhabilitation plutôt que d’un traitement strictement punitif. C’est là toute la philosophie de ces amendements, c’est-à-dire, apporter une justice qui protège, qui éduque et qui répare au lieu de punir. Dans le même temps, il faut savoir que ce texte de loi s’accompagne d’un renforcement du dispositif local à Rodrigues. Il donnera au magistrat, aux travailleurs sociaux et aux services de la protection des enfants à Rodrigues les moyens juridiques nécessaires pour intervenir efficacement dans les affaires concernant les enfants. Madame la présidente, ces amendements s’inscrivent aussi dans la continuité des engagements pris par la République de Maurice en vertu de la convention des Nations Unies relative aux droits des enfants. Le choix que nous faisons aujourd’hui dans cette Chambre, traduit dans les faits le principe fondamental selon lequel l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant doit toujours primer. Aussi, notre vote de ce soir réaffirme la volonté de ce gouvernement de garantir une égalité de traitement et de protection pour chaque enfant de la République de Maurice. Le Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill 2025 est bien plus qu’un simple exercice. C’est avant tout une réforme de justice sociale, un acte d’équité et un message fort envoyé à nos concitoyens de Rodrigues et je veux leur dire que les enfants de Rodrigues ont les mêmes droits, la même protection et la même attention que tous les autres enfants de la république. Je voudrais profiter de cette occasion pour rendre hommage à tous ceux et celles qui œuvrent chaque jour pour la protection et le bien-être des enfants à Maurice, à Rodrigues et à Agaléga. Je remercie encore une fois mon collègue, l’Attorney General pour ces amendements qui apporteront un changement fondamental dans la vie des enfants de Rodrigues. Je vous remercie.

Merci. Hon. Deputy Prime Minister! (6.29 p.m.)

Merci, Madam Speaker. Comme tous les orateurs et oratrices, comme tous les membres de l’Assemblée l’ont dit avant moi, c’est un texte de loi très important qui est devant la Chambre et c’est bon, c’est excellent, c’est éloquent que ce texte de loi fasse l’unanimité. Je ne peux pas dire des deux côtés de la Chambre, nous avons nos amis de Rodrigues de ce côté-ci, des amis de Rodrigues de l’autre côté et là aussi il y a unanimité. C’est donc un moment important et nous sommes obligés de noter qu’encore une fois à un moment important, ce qu’il reste de l’Opposition est inexistante, est absente. C’est un moment bien important. Nos sœurs et frères de Rodrigues sont mieux placés pour le dire, mais je le dis sincèrement, c’est un moment très important pour Rodrigues et ses enfants. Je tiens à le répéter, moi-même, tout comme le Premier ministre, nous ne raterons jamais une occasion de faire des choses en faveur de Rodrigues. Consolider l’autonomie, consolider la démocratie, éliminer les inégalités entre Maurice et Rodrigues, nous ne raterons jamais une occasion de progresser dans ce sens et ce soir, c’est ce que nous sommes en train de faire. Ce soir nous faisons en sorte que la loi pour les enfants à Maurice s’applique à Rodrigues. Ce n’est pas la fin de l’histoire, pas du tout. C’est une étape importante vers un idéal. Bravo à l’Attorney General, bravo à la ministre responsable des droits de l’enfance et des femmes. C’est un pas important, mais pas seulement pour Rodrigues parce que nous une vraie république. Nous autres sur l’île principale, nous devons chacun/chacune parmi nous avoir à cœur les intérêts réels de Rodrigues et c’est pourquoi je le répète ; nous ne raterons jamais une occasion d’aider Rodrigues, de consolider l’autonomie, de consolider la démocratie, de consolider l’égalité entre nos sœurs et frères et les enfants de Rodrigues et ceux de l’île Maurice. Ceci dit, j’aimerai revenir sur quelque chose qu’a mentionné mon collègue le ministre de l’Environnement et c’est un jour important pour Rodrigues pas seulement parce que nous étendons ce soir à Rodrigues les droits de l’enfant, mais aussi avec derrière la porte le COP 30. Le COP 30 le mois prochain au Brésil est un moment crucial pour le monde entier, mais surtout pour les petites îles, pour les îles comme Maurice, comme Rodrigues, comme Agaléga et je trouve ça profondément éloquent que nous avons pris la décision que la délégation de l’île Maurice à COP 30 le mois prochain au Brésil sera dirigée par le ministre des Affaires étrangères de l’île Maurice à la demande du Conseil des Ministres, du Cabinet du gouvernement, mais inclura le Chef commissaire de Rodrigues qui est aussi responsable de l’environnement à Rodrigues dans le gouvernement régional de Rodrigues. Il ne faut pas que ça passe inaperçu. C’est un geste, c’est un acknowledgement, c’est quelque chose de profond et qui ne va pas en rester là. Partout, je le répète, où nous pouvons permettre à nos sœurs et frères Rodriguais de jouer pleinement leur rôle, pas seulement dans l’intérêt de Rodrigues, mais là nous allons jouer ensemble notre rôle au Brésil à un moment où les choses se présentent mal. Il faut le dire. Le COP 30 au Brésil se présente mal. Hier, le secrétaire général des Nations Unies a donné une interview internationale sur COP 30. Les choses se présentent mal, mais nous n’avons pas – c’est ce qu’il disait, c’est ce qu’il dit – le droit de baisser les bras. Même si les choses ne se passent pas bien au Brésil à COP 30, il ne faut pas baisser les bras. Il faudra ensuite reprendre les efforts de façon à ce que dans les années à venir, nous obtenions que cette barre de 1.5% ne soit pas franchie. Cette limite de 1.5% d’augmentation de la température est en train d’être malheureusement dépassée, mais nous avons les moyens de rattraper cela et de revenir dans les années à venir. Ben, nous comptons sur le Chef commissaire de Rodrigues pour nous aider avec notre ministre des Affaires étrangères pour obtenir cela. Donc, ça m’émotionne un peu qu’au moment où on est en train de faire progresser les droits de l’enfant et donc de la famille à Rodrigues avec un amendement important et je salue moi aussi le travail fait une fois de plus par l’Attorney General. C’est formidable que nous sommes en train de faire cela à un moment où symboliquement, mais dans la pratique aussi nos sœurs et frères de Rodrigues à travers leur Chef commissaire seront au Brésil le mois prochain pour ensemble Rodrigues, l’île principale et demain Agaléga. Je n’ai pas mentionné Saint Brandon parce qu’il n’y a pas d’enfants à Saint Brandon – il n’y a que des pêcheurs, des travailleurs, le management, mais il n’y a pas d’enfant ou du moins jusqu’à présent il n’y pas d’enfants que je sache à Saint Brandon. Donc, bravo à l’unanimité qui s’est faite dans la Chambre ce soir. Bravo à nos amis de Rodrigues, bravo à l’Attorney General et vive la République de Maurice. Vive Rodrigues. Merci, Madame la présidente.

Hon. Prime Minister! (6.36 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, the Bill before the House, like hon. Ms Navarre-Marie rightly pointed out, is not any ordinary Bill. It is about equality before the law in one Republic. It also shows our determination to make sure that everyone in the Republic is treated on an equal footing. This Bill concerns one of the most sensitive responsibilities of the State – the protection and welfare of children. It seeks to ensure that when a child in Rodrigues requires the urgent protection of our courts for his or her safety and well-being, intervention can take place directly on the island itself without the need to travel to Mauritius. At present, cases involving vulnerable children, including matters of abuse, of neglect, exploitation or abandonment, we need to refer the case to the Children’s Court here, in Mauritius. While our justice system is supposed to apply equally across the Republic, the physical distance, the need for air travel, the scheduling constraints associated with these court proceedings inevitably increase and create real practical barriers. These can delay decisions, increase the distress for families – imagine a child who is being abused has to wait – and ultimately, risk compromising the purpose of the law which is, first of all, to protect. Madam Speaker, this Bill enables, therefore, the Magistrate in Rodrigues to exercise on the island the full range of protective powers provided under the Children’s Court Act of 2020. These include emergency protection orders, supervision, placement measures, monitoring arrangements and decisions connected to criminal proceedings which involve children. In short, it ensures that cases which demand urgency and humanity can be handled and without delay. Madam Speaker, the intention is simple: to ensure that every child in Rodrigues has access to the same level of protection, delivered with the same readiness and authority as any child in Mauritius. The rights we legislate for must be meaningful wherever a Mauritian child lives. In that sense, this is not a political reform nor is it a statement about autonomy. It is a practical improvement that reflects good administration and equal treatment. Rodrigues continues to enjoy its recognised autonomy through the Rodrigues Assembly in areas of local governance, and Government will continue to support that framework, but core judicial matters must remain firmly part of the national system and everyone can be protected in the same way. Madam Speaker, as part of its priorities, Government has committed to making justice more accessible and more efficient across the country. The Bill forms part of that effort. Government will continue to do all it can to ease the burden of the Rodrigues’ population, including problems involving flight tickets, their availability, prices and conditions. It is a reminder, Madam Speaker, that we are all part of the Republic of Mauritius. We are one nation. This approach is consistent with the broader direction of Government regarding Rodrigues: targeted realistic improvements that address the island’s everyday needs. As the hon. Deputy Prime Minister said, this is one step towards that. Whether it is in transport connectivity, availability of essential services or judicial access, we are determined to deliver solutions that respond to the reality of Rodrigues because Rodrigues is part of our Republic and, therefore, must have access to the same level of public service. I wish to end by congratulating the Attorney General for bringing this Bill to the House. He is doing a lot of work, as you can see. This is why I congratulate him. And this is why, Madam Speaker, I unhesitatingly commend this Bill to the House.

Thank you. Your winding-up speech, please! (6.41 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, there can be no doubt that we have, in the amendment proposed this evening, a straightforward, practical amendment which increases access to justice. However, Madam Speaker, I do not wish to take all the plaudits for this amendment. It must be underscored that this amendment is the fruit of consultations with the judiciary following an expressed request of the Chief Justice, showing if there was any need that collaboration between the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive is the best guarantor of what I have termed “the juxtaposition of powers”, which cements our democracy and the rule of law. Let me reassure the people of Rodrigues. We are fully conscious of the shortcomings which pervade the Children’s Act. Believe it or not, we are, as we speak, looking into the several amendments that are necessary, and we will listen and interact with the representatives of Rodrigues in the House before coming up with any future amendment which concerns Rodrigues. I have also taken good note of the remarks of hon. François regarding the inadequacies of the system, and we shall address them as we cannot fail the children of the Republic. Madam Speaker, let me say this to conclude. I am in full agreement that we cannot and we must do everything that we can for all the children of the Republic so that they have the same opportunities and have the same access to justice. Thank you.

Thank you. You once again commend the Bill, Attorney General?

I commend the Bill to the House, Madam Speaker. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) The Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill (No. XXV 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 Court of Rodrigues Jurisdiction (Amendment) Bill (No. XXV of 2025) was read the third time and passed.