First Reading On motion made and seconded, the Supplementary Appropriation (2024-2025) (No. 2) Bill (No. VII of 2026) was read a first time. Second Reading THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW COMMISSION BILL (No. VI OF 2026) Order read for resuming adjourned debate on the Constitutional Review Commission Bill (No. VI of 2026). Question again proposed.

The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Ramful! (4.17 p.m.) The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr D. Ramful): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we should be proud that 58 years after independence, our Constitution has stood the test of time, adapting itself through various amendments without, of course, losing its core values and its core essence, that of protecting the fundamental rights of our people. Some countries have had to rewrite their Constitution. Some Constitutions were even revoked, but ours stood firm, resilient, protecting the rights of our people and also making sure that the institutions that have been created in the Constitution do ensure the protection of the rights of our people. I, very often, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, hear some people saying that our Constitution was imposed upon us by the British but that is not true! In fact, we give the impression that as if our leaders at that time were invited over a cup of coffee at Lancaster House and were handed over a copy of that Constitution but that is not true. It has to be rectified. Our Constitution is the fruit of various negotiations, various sessions that occurred between the colonial powers and the Mauritian leaders and after various sessions, various discussions, when our leaders were happy, were satisfied that that Constitution did contain sufficient provisions to protect the rights of our people, then it was agreed and not even that, it did obtain the indirect approval of the people at the 1967 election. The general framework of the Constitution was put to the people for vote and they voted in favour of the coalition Government led by Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. It was after that. Then the British passed the Mauritius Independence Ordinance in the British Parliament and then we had the 1968 Constitution. So, as I have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, very often we hear people saying that our Constitution was handed over to us. I believe that I had to make this point very clear. It is also with pride that we can say that there have been various judicial pronouncements that have come mainly from the Privy Council on the interpretation of several sections of our Constitution that have been used as reference, as precedents in various other jurisdictions. Let me just give – especially in Commonwealth jurisdictions – a few examples. The cases like The State vs Khoyratty, where they laid emphasis on the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. This case is now being used everywhere in various jurisdictions as precedent. The case of Darmalingum vs The State, where the citizen's right to be tried within a reasonable time. The case of Dhooharika and the DPP, which talks about the vital role of the media in a democracy. So, all these judicial pronouncements that are now being used in various jurisdictions emanate from interpretation of our Constitution. This is why Mauritians should be proud of that Constitution. As I have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our Constitution has also evolved; it has evolved with time and it adapted itself through various amendments. Today, once again, we are being called upon to consider setting up a Commission; a Commission to make recommendations in order to bring extensive amendments to the Constitution in order to reinforce the fundamental rights of the people and to consolidate the institutions that have been created under the Constitution. Now, people should ask the question: why are we doing this? Why have we taken such a decision? Because little did we realise that one day, there will be a tyrannical government which will rule and will even dare to abuse people’s rights! Sometimes I listen to people on the radio. They criticise on social medias. They do not realise, two years back, under the MSM regime, what we have witnessed. They tend to forget very easily, and I am going to remind the people because, unfortunately, Mauritians tend to forget very, very easily. It is good that we use this occasion, since we are talking about constitutional rights, fundamental rights, institutions, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to remind people about what has occurred in the past 10 years. In the midst of the political campaign in November 2024, access to social medias, access to internet were suspended, in complete violation of the citizen’s right to information!

L’ancien régime!

C'est arrivé à Maurice en 2024!

MSM!

In April 2021, the MSM Government launched a consultation paper to do what? To amend the ICTA Act in order to create a National Digital Ethics Committee, composed of political appointees. Who would decide? They would decide what contents they would allow on the social media. Vous vous imaginez ce qui s'est passé sous le régime MSM ? Luckily, there was public outcry, and they retracted from this amendment. Sometimes, I listen to what is being said on the private radios. Do they realise that in November 2021, the MSM Government amended the IBA Act to reduce the duration of private radio licences from three years to one year? Avec pour but to make private radios at the beck and call of the MSM Government. They also introduced an administrative fine of up to Rs500,000. Un demi million de roupies as administrative fine if the private radio does not follow the broadcasting guidelines. This is why it is important, as has been mentioned in the present Bill, that we have to think about the introduction of new generation Bills – • freedom to information; • freedom to technology, to digital and information rights. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in December 2016 – the Prime Minister has made reference to this –, would you imagine, they brought the Prosecution Commission Bill to create a monster. A prosecution commission composed of political appointees. Do you know what to do with it? To issue directions to the Director of Public Prosecutions...

Lamentable!

...who is an independent body under the Constitution, in order to decide who to prosecute and who not to prosecute.

Lamentable!

They even succeeded in curtailing the powers of the DPP on the decision to prosecute in corruption and money laundering cases. They transferred that power to a political appointee, the then Director of ICAC. The Police Force is supposed to be ensuring law and order in the country. We were supposed to have an independent Commissioner of Police in command of the Police Force, but the Commissioner of Police, at that time, was taking directions from the ‘kitchen.’

Pe distribie gel!

The Police Force was being operated from Sun Trust. This is what was happening two years back. People have forgotten how the SST was being used to traumatise political opponents or even those who dared to criticise the policies of government. There were cover-up inquiries. What have not we read in the report of the Magistrate of the Moka Tribunal in the Kistnen case? Cover-up in murder cases. I listened to some police officers, even my bodyguards, they are complaining about promotion. Do they realise? For the first time in the history of this country, under the MSM government, promotions were given to police officers close to politicians, and the Routine Orders were not published. In opacity! They did not even know who was being promoted and who was not. This is how promotion was given under the MSM government. An accelerated promotion to some of them. Even the judiciary was not spared! Would you believe this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir? Even the judiciary! Do you remember after the verdict in the Medpoint case by the two magistrates of the Intermediate Court, finding the then Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth, guilty? His father, late Sir Anerood Jugnauth, was then the Prime Minister, and do you know what he said about the magistrates? I will quote it in Kreol. Allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. He said – “Ena ban mazistra nouvo, pena lexperyans, zot donn bann zizman brikbrak.” And the son was not better. When Bruneau Laurette was given bail, the then Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth said – “Zame mo finn trouv enn zizman de enn mazistra osi bankal ki sa. Li enn inkonpetan. Li pa konpran mem ki apel la lwa.” This is how heads of States, under the previous MSM Government, were treating the judiciary.

Shocking!

In this august Assembly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, which is supposed to be the temple of democracy, what have not we witnessed?

Pa koze! Pa koze!

The most atrocious rulings ever being handed down at every session of this Assembly by the former Speaker. The former DPM was right. I remember he was saying that when we come to power, we have to delete all these rulings from Hansard. He was right. There was no decorum at all. Unparliamentary words were being allowed. Even the then Speaker was using unparliamentary words. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just to give an example on how this House was being managed, I decided to make un relevé to see how many times, on how many occasions, MPs were either ordered out, named or suspended.

In all sessions!

Do you know how many times?

Every session! Every session!

123 fois!

Incroyable!

On 123 occasions!

Shakeel komie ena?

At one time, all the Opposition Members were ordered out. For the first time in the history of this country, the Committee of Supply was voted in one day, without any questions put!

At 1.00 a.m.!

Can you imagine this? This happened under the MSM regime in this very House which is supposed to be the temple of democracy. Sometimes when you hear people talking outside, criticising us, they have forgotten what has happened just two years back. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bank of Mauritius is another example. The Bank of Mauritius became a money printing machine under the MSM government. The Bank of Mauritius, which was supposed to be an independent body looking after monetary policy, was being used to cover for the fiscal deficit of government. This is what the Bank of Mauritius was doing. The Prime Minister said it the other day, they have printed Rs1.8 billion. This is why it is important, as has been mentioned in the Bill, that we have a Senior Officials Appointment Committee to make recommendations on the appointment of Heads of some public institutions. Municipal Elections have not been postponed once, not twice, on three occasions. En trois occasions les citadins have been prevented to vote for their representatives at Municipal Elections. This is why we have to come up with provisions so that never again Municipal Elections, Local Government Elections are postponed. Also, we need to have a Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court. Because cases involving breach of constitutional rights need to be treated with urgency. Look what has happened about the election petitions that we had entered in 2019 after the elections. It took the judiciary - I am not criticising - for several reasons, it took them five years. One whole mandate of the previous government to deliver judgment in the election petition. One whole mandate! And you see, because of that people, unfortunately, lose trust in the system. This is why on the day of the last elections, people started taking control of government electoral vehicles carrying ballot papers to ensure that elections are done fair and free. This is what happens when you delay to give justice. This is why it is important that when people feel that their constitutional rights is being breached, they have to be given justice with urgency. They have to be treated with urgency. Even the Prime Minister made mention about this – using covert surveillance for eavesdropping on citizens’ life. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not going to be long. The government at that time...

One minute left!

…became so untrustworthy when it comes to protection of the fundamental rights of people that the citizens on the day of election, they decided to use their own pen. They sanctioned the previous government and gave us the mandate to protect their fundamental rights and consolidate democracy and institutions. This is what we are doing, today, with the introduction of this Bill in Parliament. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Hon. Dr. Ms Jeetun! (4.37 p.m.)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I speak today in support of the Constitutional Review Commission Bill. As a citizen of this country, one may ask, why do we need to review our Constitution? After all, our Constitution, as my colleague has just said, has served this well for 58 years now. It has provided stability, safeguarded democracy, protected fundamental rights and helped transform Mauritius from a small island with no resources into one of Africa's most successful countries. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the true strength of a Constitution is not that it never changes. The true strength of a Constitution is its ability to remain relevant in a changing world. It is not merely a legal document. A Constitution is like a compass for a nation. It does not determine every step we take, but it provides the direction by which we navigate moments of uncertainty, of disagreement and of change. Through Vision 2050, we are asking ourselves what kind of economy we wish to build, what opportunities we wish to create, and what future we wish to leave to our children. Yet no national journey can succeed if we neglect the compass that guides it. And just as a navigator periodically checks whether the compass remains true during changing conditions, nations too must periodically reflect on whether their constitutional arrangements remain adapted to the realities of their time. The purpose of constitutional review is not to change our destination. It is to ensure that future generations can continue the journey with confidence, stability and trust. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are modernising our economy. We are modernising our infrastructure. We are modernising our technology. And so, it is only legitimate that we also reflect on whether aspects of our constitutional framework should also be modernised for the challenges of the 21st century. In fact, this is what the people of the country expect of us as a government. History teaches us a very important lesson: prosperous nations are not built merely by exceptional governments. Prosperous nations are built by exceptional institutions. As my colleague just said, institutions that are referred in the Bill, like the judiciary, like the DPP, like the Appointment Committee. Governments come and go. Political parties rise and fall. But strong institutions endure. Indeed, the true test of a nation's maturity is the quality of the institutions it leaves to the next generation. And it provides the strong local democratic fabric. So, the purpose of constitutional review is to protect tomorrow’s citizens. As the Minister responsible for economic planning, I have the privilege of leading the work on Vision 2050. Vision 2050 asks a fundamental question: what kind of Mauritius do we wish to leave for the future generations? What sort of economy do we want? What sort of society do we want? What opportunities do we want our children and grandchildren to inherit? But there is another question that is equally important: what sort of institutions do we want them to inherit? Vision 2050 is about designing the future of our economy that is socially inclusive and embedded into sustainability. The Constitutional Review Commission will look into designing the future of our democracy and one cannot succeed without the other. Economic development without strong institutions is fragile. The Senior Official Appointment Committee is one such initiative that will create good governance in public administration. Democracy without effective institution is vulnerable and the establishment of a constitutional court will reinforce that. National prosperity without institutional trust is unsustainable and the two journeys must, therefore, proceed hand in hand. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I said, Mauritius is quite unique in many ways. Our greatest resources are not oil reserves, not minerals, but the resilience and the talent of our people. And more importantly, it is the trust that our people place in our institutional fabric, and democracies endure where institutions are trusted. So, that is why constitutional review is not merely a legal exercise. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is another reason why this exercise is important. Constitutions are designed to manage disagreements. When everyone agrees, institutions are rarely tested. The real test comes when there is disagreement. A good constitution provides rules, safeguards and institutions that allow differences to be resolved peacefully, fairly and democratically. This is one of the greatest achievements of constitutional democracy, not the absence of disagreement. And the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, provides the fabric to enhance the resolution of any such differences. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, every generation faces its unique challenges. The generation that negotiated independence confronted poverty, uncertainty and questions about whether Mauritius could survive as a nation. Today, we face different challenges – artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, climate change, demographic change, geopolitical uncertainty, rapid technological disruption. The world of 2026 is not the world of 1968. And the world of 2050 will be even more different. And so, this raises a profound question. What obligations do we owe to Mauritians who are not yet born? The answer, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is simple. We owe them institutions that are at least as strong as the one we inherited. We owe them a democracy that is at least as resilient as the one that our forefathers built. We owe them a constitutional framework capable of protecting their freedom long after we have left public life. This is the essence of intergenerational justice. We are temporary custodians of an inheritance. Our responsibility is not merely to preserve it. Our responsibility is to improve it before passing on. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the strongest societies are not those that never question themselves. The strongest societies are those that possess the confidence to examine themselves honestly. As an island State, we must be agile. We must be more forward- looking. We must be more willing to prepare for tomorrow rather than merely react to yesterday. And as we stand today in this fast-changing world, constitutional renewal is a necessity. The Constitutional Review Commission Bill is therefore not about rewriting our history. It is about preparing our future. It is not about abandoning our foundations. It is about strengthening them. And so, I return to the work of Vision 2050. Vision 2050 challenges us to think beyond electoral cycles, beyond annual budgets, beyond immediate pressures, beyond the politics of the day. The constitutional review requires exactly the same mindset. It requires us to think not as politicians, but as custodians; not as occupants of office, but as stewards of national inheritance. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, every generation inherits a nation it did not build. Every generation benefits from its institution it did not design. The question before us today is therefore both simple and profound. Will we leave those institutions stronger than we found them? Will we leave our democracy more resilient than we inherited it? Will we leave our future generation better equipped to face the challenges of their time? If the answer to those questions is yes, then this Bill deserves our support because Constitutions are not monuments of the past; they are bridges to the future. It is our responsibility collectively and courageously to ensure that the bridge remains strong for generations to come. Our colleague just stated about the challenges of modern world. The challenges confronting democracies across the world today that our founders could scarcely have imagined when our Constitution was drafted. Information travels slowly. News was verified before it was published. Public debate took place in media, in town hall, in newspapers, in parliaments. Citizens could disagree but there was usually a common set of facts upon which that disagreement was based. Today, we live in a fundamentally different world. Information travels instantly. Rumours travel faster than facts. Outrage often travels further than reason. And algorithm increasingly reward what is sensational rather than what is true. Technology has given every citizen a voice and that is a remarkable democratic achievement but it has also created new challenges. Across the world, we are witnessing the rise of populism, polarisation and division. Too often, public debate is reduced to slogans rather than solutions. The challenge of our generation is therefore not simply to preserve democratic institutions. It is also to preserve democratic culture and trust in facts, not slogans. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is why constitutional reflection is more important today than at any time in recent history. The architects of our Constitution designed the pillars of our democracy: judiciary, the DPP, local democracy, which were capable of managing the challenges of their age. Our responsibility today is to ensure that our constitutional fabric remains resilient in an age of artificial intelligence, digital misinformation, global connectivity, unprecedented technological change, climate change, etc. For if the 20th century taught us that democracy must be protected from authoritarianism, the 21st century teaches us that democracy must also be protected by strengthening fundamental rights relating to the above. It is a national challenge. And it is a challenge that demands foresight, wisdom and courage from all of us. So, let me conclude with a famous quote from Abraham Lincoln. “The best way to predict your future is to create it.” I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Thank you, hon. Minister. I suspend the Sitting for half an hour. At 4.51 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.31 p.m. with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Yes, please be seated! Hon. Minister Subron, it is your turn. (5.31 p.m.) The Minister Social Integration, Social Security and National Solidarity (Mr A. Subron): Madam Speaker, we are in a defining historical moment. What we will be enacting tonight, the Constitutional Review Commission Bill, is not a law like others. It is the mother of all laws. We are presently creating the condition, an instrument to shape the society of the future and especially for future generations. This would be the main legacy of this Government. After its enactment, all will depend on how our citizens, especially the youth and visionaries, will appropriate the space and tools we are giving them to make the dreams of Republic 2.0 become a reality. How did we get here? When we were approaching the last general elections, my party made a public political proposal. Change the authoritarian of the mafiosi previous government, while at the same time changing the system. We were of the view that authoritarian and mafiosi decay of the previous government was also itself, in a sense, a product of an outdated system which itself need to be changed. It was the reflection we had after COVID-19, Kistnen murder, planting and especially Wakashio oil spill. We proposed a transition Government of two years to perform this prime duty and adopt a new Constitution. In this context, we went on to meet all the opposition parties to discuss this political project. What we are debating tonight stems from this process. In some ten meetings with the present Prime Minister and the former Deputy Prime Minister at Riverwalk, we discussed the proposal pou sanz gouvernemen et sanz system based on constitutional amendments. I must put on record the wisdom of both the present Prime Minister and the former Deputy Prime Minister when we were discussing all these matters. We finally agreed that a new Government will have its full five years mandate and agreed on the core elements of system change through fundamental amendments of the Constitution. Tonight, the whole nation should also know that Rezistans ek Alternativ only agreed to discuss tiket with our electoral partners only upon agreement on fundamental amendments to the Constitution, including electoral reform. Just to let the nation know how important was system change via constitutional change to Rezistans ek Alternativ further commitment in the Alliance du Changement. Our 20 years of involvement in various struggles made Rezistans ek Alternativ spearhead for constitutional reform in Mauritius. But if we have arrived where we are today, we must also pay tribute to people like Jack Bizlall, leftist and trade unionist, the platform for a Nouvo Konstitution et Nouvo Repiblik of 2010, Blok 104 and various movements, academics and opinion leaders. They are the core drivers of change of the present constitutional reform agenda. Madam Speaker, we are in this defining historical moment because it is the first time since independence that the people, the electorate directly and massively voted for the present constitutional reform agenda, which was part of the electoral manifesto. The Bill and its terms of reference contain, I would say, 60% of the constitutional amendments agreed and voted by the people. Let me clarify this issue. First, the mini amendment to eliminate the communal classification of candidates in election is not in the Bill. Second, the much-needed electoral reform is also not there. Third, constitutional amendment to enable the usage of Kreol in this Assembly is not included in the Bill. They are not there or here, not because this Government does not want to address these three critical constitutional issues. On the contrary, it is because the Government want to go quicker and are already addressing these issues in parallel that they have not been included in the present Bill. The electoral reform which would incorporate the issue of mandatory communal classification of candidates in general elections and the issue of Kreol in the Assembly have already been subject of two separate parallel processes. The House must also know that the separation of electoral reform was a proposal made by the MMM since last year and accepted by all the partners of Alliance du Changement. Having clarified the non-inclusion of electoral reform and amendment to eliminate communal classification of candidates in general election in the Bill, Rezistans ek Alternativ is eagerly expecting that the processes already started follow its due course to build consensus on a holistic electoral reform proposal to be brought to the to the Cabinet and the National Assembly by the hon. Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, we are in defining historical moment. I would postulate that the closest defining corresponding moment to the period present period would be the 1947 Constitution passed under the British colonial rule. It is always important to remind ourselves that colonial Mauritius knew its first set of social governing legal framework in the form of Code Noir. A special penal, labour and civil code designed solely to institutionalise, regulate and enforce the system of slavery. Now decreed a crime against humanity by the UN. The Code Noir legally class legally classified and enslaved human being as movable property, bien meuble, and set the legal limits of human exploitation, outlining several severe corporate style punishments such as branding, ear cropping and execution for runaway slaves and acts of rebellion. Our pre-constitution, in a sense, was the Code Noir. Our first constitution under the British rule in 1885 was aimed to protect the wealth accumulated by ex-slave owners as well as restricting the right to vote to the sugar oligarch. The voting franchise was tethered to strict property ownership and high income. Out of a massive population, only about 4,000 elite men, 2% were eligible to vote, while the working class remained disenfranchised. When talking about protecting the wealth accumulated by ex-slave owners, it is worth to note that the compensation paid to slave owners was around 2.1 million pounds sterling. If this sum was invested in a bank at a conservative historical average, 3% interest, it would have yielded Rs38.1 billion today. If invested in long-term bond, 4.5% interest, it would have yielded Rs603 billion. Yes, Madam Speaker, this is the figure! With the birth of the Labour Party in 1936 and with the workers and small planters struggle, the British finally had to brought a new constitution in 1947. It marked at the same time a qualitative change. It eliminated the property clause to the franchise. It dramatically expanded the voting franchise to all adults who passed a simple literacy test, exploding the voter base from around 11,000 people at this time to over 71,000. This shifted political power away from the sugar estate oligarchs and towards the masses of people, especially the working people coming from slavery periods and indentured labourers and small farmers coming from India. This 1947 Constitution was the exact opposite of the 1885 Constitution. The events leading to the 1947 Constitution itself was thus a defining moment in the history of Mauritius. Universal suffrage thus opens the door for the struggle towards independence in 1968. The adoption of the first constitution of independent Mauritius incorporated self-determination and civil and political rights. This is the first generation of rights. A major journey started in 1936. Passing the 1947 Constitution moment was achieved. Our moment is similar like the 1947 moment and what preceded it. In 2026, after 20 years of struggles, Rezistans ek Alternativ, militants like Jack Bizlall and the trade union movement, the small planters, fisher folks, democrats, opinion leaders, ecologists and other citizens. We are now at the doorstep of a new era. Likewise, to the moment of 1936 and 1947. We are at the beginning of a new historical process, not the end of it. Now is to be born a new Mauritius. From the old, a new has the possibility to be born. A qualitative historical leave is in the process. As ratified by the electorate, a qualitative transformation and enhancement can now be sold by us all. A new set of human rights, second, third generation of rights, social, economic and cultural rights, nature rights, digital rights, right to privacy, as well as the right of recall, the establishment of a constitutional court, recognition of public interest litigation, just to mention a few, are proposed to be included in the Constitution. Madam Speaker, let me expatiate on the social, economic and cultural rights. My hon. colleague spoke of many of the other rights. Let me say that the socio-economic and cultural rights, as recognised by the United Nations, were very important human rights, one after the worldwide century of struggles of workers and liberation movement mainly in the global South. Let me mention a few of them because it has not been spelled out in this Assembly – • The right to work, • the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable working conditions. • The right to strike, yes, Madam Speaker, the right to strike. • The right of everyone to social security including social insurance. • The right to get the widest possible protection and assistance to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. • The right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself, and his family. • The right to adequate food, clothing and housing and the conditions and the continuous improvement of living conditions. • The fundamental rights of everyone to be free from hunger. • The right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. • The right of education and health. • The right of everyone to take part in cultural life, to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and all its applications. It should be stressed that the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights undertakes to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the in the Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political, or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. With the inclusion of these rights in the Constitution of Mauritius, citizens will henceforth be able to have access to the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court on any violation of these social, economic, cultural rights and others, and seek redress. That is, someone not accessing, as provided for in the Constitution, health, education and housing can go to the Court. This is what it would mean when we enact the new amendments to the Constitution. Madam Speaker, the introduction of the principle of the right to of recall, that is, the possibility for electors to recall their Member their MPs in between two elections will introduce the principle of participatory democracy, for the first time, in the Constitution of Mauritius. The introduction of the rights of nature will place Mauritius amongst the pioneer country in the world to have recognised that nature has a legal right on its own. My hon. colleagues have expatiated on the other new rights for a more democratic society - I rejoin them on the issue. Madam Speaker, when I say that there that we are presently in a historical moment similar of 1947, I am also referring to two elements. First, the introduction of a new sets of rights and freedom in the Constitution have similar significance as the recognition of the universal suffrage in 1947 Constitution, which created the condition for the full recognition of the civil and political rights in the 1968 Constitution. Secondly, as we have seen in the 1947 process, some had opposed the advancement of society. In this period too, there will be new forces who will try to block the movements towards fundamental constitutional reform. We also know how opponents to progress after 1947 Constitution translated into divisions, how communalist tensions were instrumentalised, how these tensions culminated in ethnic-based violent bagarre during our independence process time. I sincerely believe that our society has grown up, is mature enough to transcend these obstacles and contradictions, and to collectively bring the gigantic leap forward awaiting us. Be it on constitutional reform issues within the parameter of this Bill, and others like the electoral reforms, outside this Bill. Third, we must factor in the obstacle that will be put by those representing the ruling economic class and corporate interest, who will fight tooth and nail, for example, against the inclusion of the rights of nature or economic and social rights in the Constitution. Wait and see! This will not be new. We have already seen how many right-wingers ferociously opposed the socioeconomic and social rights in the past in other countries. We have recently seen the political right or even extreme right-wingers deploying their aversion to the very recognition of climate and ecological crisis in many parts of the world. I bet we will see them in Mauritius too against the rights of nature in the Constitution. Notice is being given to our youth and nature lovers to get ready as from now. Madam Speaker, let me move to the last part of my intervention – to explain to the House from where my constitutional transformation journey started. It was in 2005, more than 20 years ago. My party, Rezistans ek Alternativ, was just born. We were only a few. We decided to participate in the coming general elections without filling the compulsory communalist classification of candidates in the nomination paper. We wanted to stand candidate simply as a Mauritian citizen with our Mauritianism, with our multiple and indivisible identities. All our candidatures were rejected by the Electoral Commissioner. Mauritians were shocked. We seized the Supreme Court, and Judge Balancy said that the compulsion of community-based classification was a violation of section 1 of the Constitution of Mauritius. In a historical judgment, he ruled that the 11 candidates of Rezistans ek Alternativ had to be reinserted in the 2005 election ballot. We were the first Mauritians to be able to stand candidate simply as a Mauritian citizen. This judgment was overruled behind our back in November 2005. From this moment, a fierce judicial battle unfolded. In 2010 elections, several citizens joined this struggle to stand candidate as citizen. We won, but were denied participation on a technical basis, rule of precedence. The then judge, today Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, validated the Balancy Judgment in a historical judgment. In 2011, the issue was brought to the Privy Council that said that we had a strong case and invited the local courts and the National Assembly to deal with the issue. In 2012, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled in our favour and stated that the rejection of candidatures was a violation of section 25(b) of the UN Civil and Political Rights Covenant to which Mauritius is a signatory. The UN also stated that Mauritius is at crossroads. We have to decide, shall we remain a community-based electoral system based on community classification of 1972 or shall we move towards another electoral system, which will guarantee the diverse political representation or other interests - I am adding - via a dose of proportional representation. This is the challenge, in parallel to the Constitutional Review Commission, we need to transcend in the very near future. Madam Speaker, yes, indeed, we are in a defining moment of our history. The only ones who will judge us will be our grand-granddaughters and grand-grandsons when looking back 50 years afterwards. In fact, it is precisely for them that we have a duty to transcend this historical moment positively by bringing the constitutional and the much-needed electoral reform. We are living in time of rampant global capitalism with its existential crisis, be it in terms of climate and ecological crisis, or in terms of war crisis with possibilities of nuclear exchanges which threaten the very survival of our civilization. Madam Speaker, our comrades from Rodrigues have raised pertinent questions which we as Resistance and Alternative share. The Commission will be a space dedicated to them too, and rest assured that one member of the Commission is indeed one of your proud Rodriguan sons, Mr Joel Edouard, a well-known historian. His name in the Commission is proposed by the Cabinet. I will not go into the details of the composition of the Commission. Madam Speaker, let me end. I am proud as a 40 years plus activist. We are proud as Resistance and Alternative, as l'Alliance du Changement Government to initiate one of the most important constitutional transformative journeys of our time. Long live the new Republic 2.0. This Bill deserves to be supported by both sides of the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Minister Gunness! (5.55 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, at its heart, this debate is about one fundamental question. How do we strengthen Mauritian democracy for future generations? Democracy is not self-sustaining. It depends on strong institutions, effective safeguards and public confidence in the rule of law. When democratic protections are weakened, trust declines and when Constitutions fail to evolve, they risk falling behind the society they are meant to serve. This is why the Constitutional Review Commission Bill is so important today. This Bill is not about political convenience. It is not about headlines and it is certainly not about short-term politics. It is about correcting institutional weaknesses that have been exposed over time. It is about modernising our constitutional framework and it is about ensuring that no Government, regardless of political colour, can ever take liberties with democratic institutions again. That is why, 58 years after our independence, the Commission has been tasked with reviewing our Constitution; the Commission that we are going to put in place. Madam Speaker, Mauritius has built a proud democratic reputation since independence in 1968. We are often cited internationally as a stable democracy, a country where different communities live together peacefully under democratic institutions but democracy is never permanently guaranteed. Democracy must be defended. Democracy must evolve and democracy must learn from past mistakes. Therefore, in that vein, we promised during the last election to bring major changes to our Constitution. This Government, unlike the previous MSM Government, is not using its three-quarter majority to weaken democratic institutions or to undermine constitutional safeguards. Many Mauritians still remember the controversial Prosecution Commission Bill of 2016, through which the former Government attempted to amend the Constitution in order to create a mechanism widely perceived as an attempt to control or interfere with the independence of the Director of Public Prosecution. That project raised serious concerns across the country because the independence of the DPP is one of the essential pillars of the rule of law and democratic governance but today, this Government is choosing a very different path. This Government is using its constitutional majority not to concentrate power, but to strengthen democracy, deepen constitutional rights and freedoms, reinforce democratic institutions and provide stronger safeguards for future generations. In our Government Programme 2025-2029, a Bridge to the Future, at page two, we clearly announced the setting up of a Constitutional Review Commission to examine the major democratic and constitutional challenges facing our Republic. The programme specifically announced reforms aimed at strengthening democratic institution, restoring public confidence in governance and modernising our constitutional framework. It proposed constitutional guarantees for the regular holding of Local Government Elections, stronger protection of fundamental rights, reforms to our electoral system, anti-defection provisions, a right to recall Members of Parliament, greater transparency in political financing and establishment of a constitutional division of the Supreme Court. The programme also announced that the Commission would examine broader constitutional protections relating to the environment, technology, education, health, economic and social rights, as well as measures to reinforce the independence and credibility of public institutions and today, this commitment is becoming a reality as the Bill is now before this House for debate. I will fail in my duty if I do not congratulate the hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Dr. Navinchandra Ramgoolam for bringing this important Bill before this House. True, it has taken some time, but we are keeping our promise. We are also proud that the Commission will be presided by a respected former Chief Justice and other prominent members whom I am sure nobody can contest their independence. As someone who has spent nearly half a century in the Mouvement Militant Mauricien, I have witnessed many defining chapters of our political history. I have seen Governments rise and fall. I have seen alliances formed and broken. I have seen moments where institutions were respected and I have also seen moments where democratic safeguards came under strain. Madam Speaker, I am not going to dwell on all the issues which the Commission is mandated to examine, but rather on a few of them which I deeply value. One of the reasons why this Constitutional Review Commission is necessary today is because what Mauritians witnessed in recent years regarding Local Government Elections. The last Municipal Election before the recent polls were held on 14 June 2015. Under normal democratic practice, the new elections should have taken place several years earlier. Instead, the previous MSM Government repeatedly postponed Municipal Elections, first in 2021, then again in 2022 and once more in 2023. For years, elected municipal mandates were extended without the population being consulted through the ballot box. Village Council Elections also were postponed under the MSM-led Government. Regional democracy is of utmost importance as it empowers local communities in the management of their own affairs. Municipal Elections were eventually held following the 2024 general elections but that does not erase the constitutional and democratic concerns raised by those repeated postponements because the issue is larger than one election. The issue is whether any future Government should have the power to repeatedly delay democratic consultations for prolonged periods without stronger constitutional safeguards. This is the question. Madam Speaker, for many Mauritians, the most worrying aspect was not only the postponement itself, but the reasoning used to justify it. The MSM Government openly argued before the Supreme Court that Municipal Elections were not constitutionally protected because according to them, the Constitution is silent on local elections. Madam Speaker, imagine the danger of such reasoning. If elections can simply be postponed repeatedly because the constitution is silent, then, tomorrow, any government with a parliamentary majority, may feel tempted to weaken democratic processes for political convenience. That is exactly why the Commission has as mandate to see how local government elections are enshrined in the Constitution so that, henceforth, no government may postpone them without a valid constitutional justification. Madam Speaker, the inclusion of local government elections in our Constitution should, perhaps, have been done at the time we came with the amendment to include the Rodrigues Regional Assembly election in the Constitution. However, as we say, it is better late than never. No future government should ever again be allowed to play with democracy in this manner. Madam Speaker, today, some people will say: ‘The reform will never happen. They will never go through with it. This is only political communication.’ We hear those comments, but I want to remind this House that throughout our political history, many important democratic reforms were once considered impossible until courageous political decisions were taken. Mauritian politics has always evolved through struggle, resistance and democratic engagement. Madam Speaker, this Bill also opened the debate on anti-defection legislation. This is not a new debate in Mauritius. It is a debate that has accompanied our democracy for decades. Our political history has repeatedly been shaped by defections, political realignments, breakaway movements and shifting alliances. Entire governments have been transformed. Parliamentary majorities have changed. New political parties have emerged. Political mandates, given by voters at one election, have sometimes been altered long before the next one. For many citizens, this has created a fundamental question about democratic legitimacy. When voters cast their ballots, they are not simply voting for an individual. They are voting for a programme, a set of values, a political project, and very often, a team seeking a mandate to govern. Yet, throughout our history, Mauritians have repeatedly witnessed situations where elected representatives cross the political floor, join rival formations or contributed to changing the political balance established by voters. Nobody disputes that elected representatives must enjoy freedom of conscience. Democracy cannot function without that principle. But democracy also requires respect for the mandate entrusted by the electorate. The challenge before us is, therefore, not to suppress political freedom, but to strike a fair balance between the rights of elected representatives and the sovereign will of the people. Because in any democracy, citizens have a legitimate expectation that the choice they make on election day will not be fundamentally altered without accountability or without returning to the people themselves. For too long, this question has remained unresolved. Today, through this Constitutional Review Commission, the opportunity is being given to examine whether stronger constitutional safeguards are needed to protect both democratic stability and the integrity of the electoral mandate. Let us speak honestly. For the MMM, this issue carries deep political and emotional significance. Since the historic 1976 election, the MMM has experienced repeated defections and political departures. Militants have often witnessed elected representatives obtain votes under one political banner and later abandon the mandate entrusted to them by the people. And yes, even recently, Mauritians have once again witnessed political departures and political repositioning. That is part of democracy. Nobody is denying that, but the constitutional question remains valid. When citizens vote for a political programme, a political ideology and a political alliance, should elected representatives be free to completely abandon a mandate without accountability to voters? These are difficult questions, but they are necessary questions. Madam Speaker, the proposal for a right to recall mechanism is also extremely important. Citizens today expect greater accountability from politicians. People no longer want democracy to mean vote once every five years and remain silent afterwards. The right to recall introduces the principle that elected representatives remain accountable throughout their mandate. Madam Speaker, another important proposal concerns the constitutional recognition of the values contained in our national anthem: peace, justice and liberty. Madam Speaker, 50 years after independence, these values still do not explicitly appear in our Constitution. Yet, these three principles define the soul of Mauritius – • Peace – because our country has remained an example of co-existence among different communities and religions. • Justice – because generations of workers, trade unionists and militants fought for social justice and equal opportunity. • Liberty – because democracy, freedom of expression and human dignity must always remain protected. At a time when democracies across the world are facing extremism, intolerance and authoritarian temptations, Mauritius must proudly reaffirm these principles within its Constitution. Madam Speaker, this Bill also seeks to strengthen protection against discrimination, particularly for persons living with disabilities. A modern republic cannot claim progress while leaving vulnerable citizens behind. Inclusion must not remain a slogan used during campaigns. It must become a constitutional reality. Madam Speaker, the strengthening of the Electoral Commission is equally essential. Mauritius has earned international recognition for holding free and fair elections. But institutions must continuously be protected from political pressure and political interference. Strong democracies depend on strong institutions. Madam Speaker, political financing reform is another issue which Mauritius has debated for decades. This discussion did not suddenly appear today because of political convenience. As far back as 2002, a Select Committee on Public Funding of Political Parties, chaired by former Attorney General, Emmanuel Leung Shing, examined proposals aimed at bringing greater transparency and accountability to political financing in Mauritius. Around the same period, important reflection on electoral reforms were also undertaken. Unfortunately, once again, the MSM found all types of excuses not to come forward with a projet de loi. For more than 20 years, successive debates, consultations and reports highlighted the urgent need for a credible framework governing political financing and electoral transparency. Yet, despite all those discussions, what did the previous MSM Government finally bring to this House in 2019? A Political Financing Bill, which was widely criticised as incomplete, selective and dangerously unbalanced. A Bill which many believe was designed more to control political opponents than to genuinely clean up the financing of politics in Mauritius. A Bill which failed to inspire confidence because transparency cannot be credible when institutions themselves are perceived as being weakened by political interference. Madam Speaker, real reforms cannot exist where there are fear, intimidation and excessive concentration of power. Real democratic credibility cannot exist when a government repeatedly postpones election while simultaneously claiming to defend democracy. Today, through this Constitutional Review Commission, we finally have the opportunity to conduct a more serious, broader and more credible national reflection on political financing and democratic accountability. Not for partisan advantage, but for the long-term strengthening of our democratic institutions. Madam Speaker, a Constitution cannot remain frozen while society evolves. Today, Mauritius faces new realities. Digital transformation, Artificial Intelligence, environmental threats, climate vulnerability, data protection, economic uncertainty, and increasing demands for democratic accountability. Our institution must evolve accordingly. Madam Speaker, this Bill is not about weakening democracy. It is about strengthening it. It is not about political revenge. It is about democratic responsibility. It is not about partisan calculation. It is about the future stability of our Republic. Mauritius has always progressed when institutions were stronger than personalities and when the national interest prevailed over narrow political interests. Today, we have the opportunity to strengthen the democratic foundations of our Republic for generations to come. Let us not waste that opportunity, Madam Speaker. I thank you.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Dr. Boolell! (6.16 p.m.) The Minister of Agro-Industry, Food Security, Blue Economy and Fisheries (Dr. A. Boolell): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, right from the outset, we have to state facts. To me, not only to me, but to many people, this is history in the making. Some may argue, it is a prelude to history making; wait till the Commission submits its findings. But I can vouchsafe, this is history in the making. The hon. Prime Minister, as first amongst the equals, is honouring an electoral pledge which features prominently in Government's programme. The setting up of a Constitutional Review Commission is fundamental to the process of democracy. The Commission will listen to the voice of the people and its people's legislation first, and foremost. Government will pay heed. I am not saying that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but there will be wide consensus. Talk to people who are well versed in interpreting our Constitution. Unlike a lay person who moves around with the public, rubs shoulders with one and all, I was told that the Constitution is sacrosanct and supreme. Precisely, because of supremacy and sacrosanctity of our Constitution, that the Review Commission will not be insensitive to the creation of a court of appeal whose judges have to be, not only independent, but fiercely independent. How will the judges be selected? The Commission will not make the deliberate choice. It will be the choice of the mere mortals and the experts. The proposal made by a former international judge with the UN cannot and should not go unnoticed. We should always have judges at the Berlin Wall. Madam Speaker, between our Government and the previous government – the MSM- led regime – there is not only a vast difference, but there is a monumental difference. The MSM-led regime had a reputation to tamper with the Constitution. The MSM in government was a regime of colourable device. Why did the MSM-led government convene an early Sitting of Parliament on 26 January 1993? The political arm of the Executive of a decadent regime in collusion with the then Speaker wanted to declare the seat of the then Leader of the Opposition vacant. The court reaffirmed under section 37 (1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, not the Speaker or Parliament itself, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a Member of Parliament has vacated his or her seat. The Supreme Court ruled, Dr. Navin Ramgoolam was then allowed to retain his seat. The MSM- led regime in government was a square peg in a round hole. From 2019 to 2024, separation of powers was blurred, and collusion between the Speaker and the Leader of the House was a trademark of the culture of impunity. Against this backdrop, Madam Speaker, I will walk you down memory lane to highlight the merits of this Bill. I seek the indulgence of this this House to step back, not by years, but by generations. Because what we debate today is not simply a piece of legislation. It is a question of who we are as a people; as a nation, what we have built, and whether we have the courage to build something that lasts. In 1961, one of the world's most famous economists, a Nobel Laureate, Professor James Meade of Cambridge University, looked at this island and pronounced it doomed. His conclusion was as bleak as it was authoritative and I quote, – “whatever economic progress Mauritius might achieve would be at least modest.” And 11 years later, the Nobel Laureate, V.S. Naipaul, came here and published his verdict. He described Mauritius as an overcrowded barracoon. A land without destiny. Labour Party, under the able leadership of the Father of the Nation, proved them to be wrong. Manmohan Singh, then Professor, if I am not mistaken, at Cambridge University, had faith in the leadership of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam and the will of our people. Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, and other political leaders of the time, gifted Mauritius with a Constitution written by a legal team led by Professor S. A. de Smith. The latter specifically requested that his ashes be scattered across Mauritius. It was indeed honoured. Meade, Titmuss, and V.S. Naipaul were wrong because they looked at our geography and saw only its limitation. They counted our resources and found them wanting. They did not see, could not see the one resource that would define this nation and carry it forward. At the end of an arduous road, after years of trials, tribulation, trouble, the new Mauritius was born to be guided by a Constitution, the rule of law and separation of powers. We received foreign investment because the world trusts our institutions. We punch above our weight in every international forum because countries know that when Mauritius makes a commitment, it keeps it. Madam Speaker, that is the dividend of democracy. At the centre of that democracy stands a Constitution. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the landmark case of Matadeen v. Pointu – spelt out forcefully – and I quote – “A constitution is an attempt at a particular moment in history to lay down an enduring scheme of government in accordance with certain moral and political values.” Our Constitution has served us well. The independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers, the system of check and balances, these were not gifts. They were choices made by the freedom fighters of our great little country. Choices that subsequent generations have had to honour and defend. But Constitution like democracies do not maintain themselves. They require vigilance, they require reform, and sometimes, as we know only too well from recent memory, they require rescue. Madam Speaker, I will not pretend that the road that brought us here was a straight one. We know what this country went through during the MSM years. An erosion of independence of institutions that generation had built and trusted. There had been an attempt to arrest the DPP, which was unheard of. Our beloved Mauritius descended into a grey zone of electoral autocracy. The people of Mauritius will remember. The word planting, once a proud agricultural term in Mauritius, born from the soil, became synonymous with something dark, that the deliberate planting of drugs to destroy lives and silent dissent. This is what we had become. Some police officers whom we trusted for our security, had turned into dacoits. Reward money was weaponised to suit the political agenda of the government of the day. So much drug had infiltrated the arteries of this country that we are today seeing the devastating consequences affecting our youth. There was overt surveillance into the private lives of ordinary citizens and members of the press. Phone tapping was rampant. The people of Mauritius gave their answer on the election day. They gave not a mandate, but a verdict. Politics is not a test of popularity, but the will to make hard decisions for the betterment of a nation. Some may argue, we campaign in poetry and govern in prose. And from the moment this Government took office, certain words began to quietly disappear from our national vocabulary: wiretapping, planting, censorship. In their place, came something we had almost forgotten, the taste of a free press, independent journalism, the ability to speak, to criticise, to hold power, to account without fear. We did not just win an election; we reclaimed a Republic, Madam Speaker but reclaiming what was lost is not enough. Our obligation to this country is not merely to restore. It is to build something stronger in its place. Something that makes it harder, not merely unlikely for the abuses of the last decade to recur. Madam Speaker, trust in politics is not maintained by rhetoric. It is maintained by action. When we stood before the President on the 24 January 2025 and presented the Government Programme for 2025-2029, we made a specific public commitment to appoint a Constitutional Review Commission. The Bill before this House today is the fulfilment of that commitment to the letter. We said we would do it, we are doing it. The Constitutional Review Commission will be tasked with examining the full spectrum of our constitutional framework and making recommendation for reform. Its mandate is deliberately broad because the task before us is genuinely ambitious. For the first time, a Senior Official's Appointment Committee will be established to ensure that the heads of our major public institutions are appointed on merit and independence, not on political loyalty. Fundamental rights will be strengthened and modernised. Not only the civil and political rights of previous century, but the right to a clean environment, to access to healthcare and education, to protection of personal data and privacy in the digital age. Rights that Mauritius had already recognised in international treaties it has signed and must now be enshrined in its own supreme law. The independence of the Director of Public Prosecution will be reinforced so that decision to prosecute is never again susceptible to political interference. I am not saying that the DPP is next to God, but the office has a moral and legal right to justify its decision as and when required. Stronger safeguards will be put around our electoral process. Free and fair elections, the independence of the Electoral Commissioner, fast access to justice in electoral dispute, the transparency of political funding because an election that cannot be trusted, and I say it – is no election at all. Anti-defection provisions will be introduced so that the mandate given by the people to their elected representatives, cannot be treated or surrendered for personal advantage. Should an electoral college be widened to give additional powers to the President? It is in our Electoral Programme. It was spelt out in the Presidential Address. It will be raised and discussed at the bar of public opinion. It is sad that politicians from specific quarters are trying to whip basic and baseless arguments over it. And for the first time, the Constitution will enshrine a principle of freedom of information because in a democracy, transparency is not a favour the government grants to the public; it is an obligation the government owes to the people it serves. There have been criticisms from the Opposition that the mandate of the Commission would be incomplete without the revision of the Electoral System including the Best Loser System but the modernisation of our electoral system has always been under the aegis of Prime Minister. Several reports have been published and the work is ongoing. There is a need to avoid unintended consequences. The Commission will act diligently to make the difference without exercising any influence on those who will freely express themselves. Perhaps the most important aspect of this Bill, Madam Speaker, is not what the Commission will examine; it is how it will examine. The Bill sets out a four-stage consultative process. Citizen, civil society, organisations, political parties and experts will all be invited to submit their proposals. The Commission will consult, it will research, it will deliberate, and only then, will it draft. This is not a technocratic approach of a government that has already decided and is merely seeking validation. It is an invitation to the people of Mauritius to participate in the making of their own Constitution. It has been done before. Iceland invited the citizens to crowdsource a Constitution in 2011. South Africa built its post-apartheid Constitution from months of public hearings that reached to every township and province. The legitimacy of a Constitution is inseparable from the process that created it. We are asking every Mauritian, what kind of country do you want to live in? What values do you want your supreme law to protect? What abuses do you never want to see again? The Constitution will have to gather the voices of the people, including the marginalised one. The Commission will be a bridge between government and the people. Madam Speaker, I want to close with a reflection that goes beyond the closures and schedules of this Bill. There is a realignment in our political circumstances today. For the first time in a generation, the Government holds constitutional majority required to amend the supreme law of this land, and we must pay tribute to the leaders of all four parties which form this great alliance –Nouveaux Démocrates, Rezistans ek Alternativ, MMM and the Labour Party. That majority was not given to us as a privilege. It was given to us, Madam Speaker, as a responsibility. And this window will not remain open indefinitely. We have before us an opportunity to build a Constitution worthy of our history and strong enough to protect our future. The majority is there, the moment is here. And the only question that remains is whether we will have the political will to use it. And I say yes, we shall. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Minister of Environment! (6.34 p.m.) The Minister of Environment, Solid Waste Management and Climate Change (Mr R. Bhagwan): Merci, Madame la présidente. Je ne vais pas être long parce que tout ça a été dit par mes collègues. Madame la présidente, je ne pouvais ne pas intervenir sur ce projet de loi. Comme l'a si bien dit l'honorable Subron, quelques années encore, nous sommes en train de tracer l'île Maurice de demain, la République de demain. Madame la présidente, les élections générales de 2024 n'ont pas été des simples élections de remplacement d'une équipe par une autre. Il s'agissait, Madame la présidente, pour le pays de marquer au fer rouge un gouvernement sortant pour ses innombrables atteintes à la liberté. Marquer au fer rouge, je l'ai bien dit, ces abus contre l'État de droit et le pillage systématique des biens publics. Ces élections, Madame la présidente, ont permis non seulement de sanctionner comme il se doit un gouvernement pourri jusqu'à la moelle, mais surtout à travers un score sans appel. En plébiscitant ce gouvernement, la population s'est donné l'espace, la fraîcheur et les moyens pour que les institutions progressent et que le pays renaisse de ses cendres pour enfin effectuer un grand bond en avant. Ce gouvernement, issu des élections de 2024, représente donc une formidable énergie constructive et une opportunité pour effectuer les grandes réformes nécessaires et depuis longtemps en souffrance. C'est cela l'un des plus grands atouts de ce gouvernement. C'est donc avec cette conviction que ce gouvernement a l'immense responsabilité de concrétiser cet aveu resté pieux depuis longtemps. Le Constitutional Review Commission Bill présenté par le chef du gouvernement, l'honorable Premier ministre Dr. Ramgoolam, est un exemple concret. Pendant des lustres, on a évoqué ici et là les changements devenus nécessaires pour remettre nos institutions au diapason avec les nouvelles normes de transparence et de gouvernance. C'est donc dans un environnement nouveau, dans un paysage politique plus serein que nous, nous lançons sur ce chantier constitutionnel. C'est donc dans un environnement sain, je leur ai dit, que nous sommes en train de venir avec ce projet de loi. Déjà, Madame la présidente, dès les premiers mois au gouvernement, nous avons lancé des signaux tangibles. Personne ne peut remettre en question le fait qu'avec ce gouvernement, les Mauriciens ont retrouvé leur voix, leur liberté d'expression et une tranquillité d'esprit. Ils peuvent maintenant s'exprimer plus librement sans vivre sous la menace de l'intimidation. Nous avons vécu ces moments tristes de l'arbitraire, de planting ou d'atteinte injustifiée à leur vie privée à travers les écoutes téléphoniques. Il ne faut aussi jamais oublier que c'est sous ce gouvernement, notre gouvernement, que l'indépendance et les pouvoirs du directeur des poursuites publiques ont été rétablis et constitutionnellement renforcés. Alors que nous savons à quel point – il faut le redire ; mes collègues l'ont dit –, le bureau du DPP avait été méthodiquement pris pour cible. Des attaques multiples frontales et démotiver le personnel de ce bureau. D'abord, à travers une première tentative de vider cette autorité suprême en matière de poursuite à travers le Public Prosecution Commission Bill, avorté in extremis. Je dois rendre hommage à l'époque au PMSD, à Xavier-Luc Duval. Ensuite, la mise sous tutelle du bureau du DPP sous l'autorité de l'Attorney General, compromettant directement son indépendance opérationnelle et financière. À cela s'ajoutaient de graves affaires institutionnelles répétées avec l'ancien commissaire de police, des pressions, des commentaires publics et des communiqués délibérément destinés à saper l'autorité et le moral du DPP. Sans oublier des menaces à peine voilées. Tout comme une atteinte directe au pouvoir constitutionnel du DPP à travers la Financial Crime Commission Act de 2024 qui visait à détourner, à hijack des attributions qui appartiennent constitutionnellement exclusivement au DPP. Pourtant, Madame la présidente, malgré ces pressions, le bureau du DPP est resté un rempart contre ces abus. Ses représentants ont fait preuve d'un courage exemplaire, notamment lors de l'affaire Kistnen devant le tribunal de Moka. Ce gouvernement a donc eu à cœur de restituer à cette institution sa pleine indépendance financière, opérationnelle et constitutionnelle. Pas que ça, nous avons aussi rendu public le rapport du Fact Finding Committee sur la mort de 12 patients dialysés au New Souillac Hospital durant la pandémie de la COVID-19. 12 vies, Madame la présidente, 12 familles brisées. Tout comme nous avons rendu public le rapport de la Court of Investigation sur l'échouement du MV Wakashio ainsi que celui sur le Land Drainage Master Plan. Madame la présidente, on est appelés à faire des choix stratégiques par rapport à notre économie, par rapport à la gestion du social, de l'environnement pour construire une société durable, une économie prospère et un cadre de vie agréable à notre population. Déjà, depuis le début de ce mandat, le scénario business as usual n'est pas une option envisageable après le bilan catastrophique laissé par le MSM et amplifié maintenant par la crise et les incertitudes financières internationales. Dans de telles situations, le gouvernement a préféré jouer la carte de la transparence sur la situation exacte du pays et les défis auxquels nous devons tous ensemble faire face dans les mois à venir. Le rapport The State of the Economy nous a confirmé comment les institutions financières de l'État fonctionnaient et les conséquences désastreuses pour le pays. Madame la présidente, ce gouvernement a été élu pour apporter des changements, des changements importants, des changements structurels, des changements qui touchent le cœur même de la démocratie. Mon collègue, l’honorable ministre des Administrations régionales, a également lancé des consultations pour une refonte de la Local Government Act. Tout cela indique que le gouvernement veut impliquer la population dans la prise des décisions. Cette refonte de nos collectivités locales comprend aussi l'introduction dans la constitution des dispositions rendant obligatoire la tenue des élections des collectivités locales à des échéances prévues par la loi. Cela fera partie des attributions de cette commission de réforme constitutionnelle. Madame la présidente, notre Constitution est un héritage précieux, mais comme tout édifice, elle porte les marques du temps. Des manquements se sont révélés. Il serait irresponsable de les ignorer au nom d'une tradition figée. Notre devoir est de corriger ce qui doit l'être tout en préservant ce qui est fait force qui fait notre force. Ce projet de loi, une fois adopté, donnera force de loi à la Commission de révision constitutionnelle. Il habilite le Président de la République à nommer cette commission dont la mission sera d'examiner et de formuler des recommandations sur les réformes constitutionnelles fondamentales, la protection des droits fondamentaux et la consolidation de notre démocratie et de nos institutions. Parlons de la composition de cette commission qui témoigne de l'importance que le gouvernement accorde à ce projet. Une commission présidée par un ancien chef juge et incluant des personnalités de calibre, un ancien directeur des poursuites publiques, entre autres personnes crédibles, dont l'intégrité et l'expérience sont reconnues de tous. Ce gouvernement réunit cette élite en intelligence collective, car ce projet est trop important pour être laissé à l'improvisation. Il mérite le meilleur et nous avons mis le meilleur à son service. Madame la présidente, quels sont les grands actes que la Commission sera appelée à examiner ? Premièrement, la création, - mes collègues l'ont dit, je le redis, - la création d'un Senior Official Committee. Un comité chargé de faire des recommandations au gouvernement sur la nomination des responsables des grandes institutions publiques. Trop longtemps ces nominations ont été perçues comme des décisions opaque. Ce comité apportera transparence et mérite. Deuxièmement, la création d'une nouvelle cour d'appel au sein de la cour suprême, composée de juges d'appel. Cela permettra de traiter des appels contre les décisions des juges de premières instances, tout en maintenant le droit du recours final au Judicial Committee du Privy Council. C'est une réforme de modernisation judiciaire attendue depuis longtemps. Troisièmement, l'établissement d'une division constitutionnelle de la cour suprême dédiée au traitement rapide des affaires constitutionnelles et des droits de l'homme parce que justice delayed is justice denied, surtout quand il s'agit des libertés fondamentales. Quatrièmement, pour avoir dirigé à un moment un journal, j'ai personnellement fait l'expérience de ce que signifie concrètement l'absence de droit à l'information. L'information n'est pas un privilège accordé à la presse. C'est un droit appartenant au peuple que la presse exerce en son nom. La consécration du principe de liberté d'information que la Commission de la réforme constitutionnelle sera appelée à examiner vient précisément corriger cette lacune. Madame la présidente, permettez-moi d'insister sur un point qui me tient particulièrement à cœur : la révision du chapitre 2 de notre Constitution. La Commission sera chargée d'examiner comment mieux protéger les droits fondamentaux, y compris ce qu'on appelle les droits de nouvelles générations. Des droits liés à l'environnement, à la technologie, à la santé, à l'éducation, des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels reconnus par les traités internationaux. L'inclusivité ne doit pas rester une simple bonne intention qu'on remet de temps en temps dans des formules ronflantes, mais doit être une réalité au quotidien. Peu importe le lieu de résidence d'une personne ou de sa situation de handicap. No stone should be left unturned, y compris contre les discriminations dont sont victimes les personnes en situation de handicap. Cette Commission sera appelée à examiner le renforcement de leur protection, un impératif moral et juridique fondamental, garantissant leur pleine participation à la vie sociale, professionnelle et civique sur un pied d'égalité avec les autres citoyens. Encore plus encore, le projet de loi mentionne explicitement les droits de la nature. C'est une vision audacieuse, progressiste, en phase avec les grandes réflexions internationales sur notre rapport à la planète. D'ailleurs, à mon ministère, on travaille sur la révision de l'Environment Act et nous avons reçu une cinquantaine de commentaires du public et de la société civile. Nous allons également examiner comment inscrire dans notre Constitution les valeurs fondamentales que nous proclamons dans notre hymne national : la paix, la justice, la liberté. Ces mots que nous chantons, il est temps de les graver dans notre loi suprême. Le projet de loi, Madame la présidente, prévoit aussi des dispositions anti-défection pour les membres de l'Assemblée nationale. C'est une mesure de discipline démocratique. Le mandat appartient au peuple, pas aux ambitions individuelles. Madame la présidente, un mot sur la réforme électorale. Oui, c'est vrai qu'elle n'est pas incluse dans ce projet de loi. C'est un choix délibéré et sage, rendu public dans les délibérations du Conseil des ministres du 25 novembre 2025. Il ne faut pas voiler la face. Un système électoral peut faire et défaire un pays. Les enjeux sont différents. Les sensibilités sont différentes. Chacun a son opinion. Chacun a ses appréhensions et c'est légitime. Il était donc juste de ne pas tout traiter ensemble. Donner à chaque chantier toute l'attention qu'il mérite. La réforme électorale mérite son propre espace, son propre débat et je suis sûr que nous aurons cette réforme. Le but de cette démarche est de donner à la population non seulement l'assurance que le que le processus est sérieux, mais aussi les moyens d'y participer. Madame la présidente, pour conclure, je veux rappeler pourquoi nous faisons tout cela. Nous le faisons parce que la population de l'île Maurice a exprimé par son vote le désir d'un changement véritable. Nous le faisons parce que la démocratie ne se décrète pas depuis en haut. Elle se construit avec le peuple, pour le peuple et par le peuple. Avec cette Commission et ses commissaires mûris par l'expérience, avec la volonté politique claire de ce gouvernement, je suis convaincu que nous allons amener ce projet à bon port. La confiance que vous nous avez accordée, nous ne la prenons pas à la légère. Nous la portons chaque jour comme une obligation. Ce gouvernement s'engage, au cours de ce mandat, à doter le pays d'une fondation démocratique solide, transparente et surtout capable de résister aux assauts présents et futurs des potentiels fossoyeurs de la démocratie et protéger notre population contre les lois liberticides. Ce gouvernement s'engage à mettre les bouchées doubles pour rattraper un retard dans la mise à jour de nos lois fondamentales afin de léguer aux prochaines générations un héritage dont elles seront fières. Ce gouvernement a mandat pour reformer, pour transformer les institutions vitales du pays et c'est de loin le bilan le plus pertinent que ce gouvernement s'engage à présenter à la fin de son mandat. Les travaux de cette Commission permettront de garantir le destin démocratique de notre République. Et sur ce, je soutiens pleinement ce projet de loi. Je vous remercie.

Merci. Hon. First Member for Stanley and Rose-Hill! (6.51 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, nous discutons du projet de loi qui est devant cette Chambre, le Constitutional Review Commission Bill dans une grande confusion. En effet, dans le pays et ici même, dans cette Chambre, beaucoup croient qu'en votant le projet de loi qui est devant nous, nous allons apporter des amendements à 19 aspects de notre Constitution, la loi suprême du pays, et traduire ainsi dans l'effet telle ou telle mesure du Programme électoral de l'Alliance du Changement. Or, ce n'est pas du tout le cas. Lorsque nous allons voter le projet de loi qui est devant nous, nous ne ferons que mettre sur pied une Commission constitutionnelle qui sera appelée à faire des recommandations d'amendement à notre Constitution. Ces recommandations d'amendement auront à être approuvées ou rejetées ou amendées par le gouvernement. Les recommandations qui seront approuvées par le gouvernement devront alors faire l'objet de projets de loi visant à amender telle ou telle clause de notre Constitution et qui demanderont à être voté à une majorité de 3/4 ou de 2/3 selon le cas de notre Assemblée législative. La première question qui se pose est de savoir combien de temps prendra la Commission que nous allons mettre sur pied pour faire ces recommandations au gouvernement. Combien de temps prendra ensuite le gouvernement pour décider quelles recommandations il acceptera, rejettera ou amendera ? Et, après avoir décidé, combien de temps prendra le gouvernement pour venir de l'avant avec des projets de loi amendant tel ou tel aspect de notre Constitution ? On peut s'attendre à ce que la Commission constitutionnelle prenne autour de deux ans pour soumettre ses recommandations. Et on peut s'attendre à ce que le gouvernement actuel prenne autour d'un an avant d'approuver telle ou telle recommandation de la Commission constitutionnelle et de préparer et soumettre au Parlement différents projets de loi amendant telle ou telle clause de notre Constitution. En d'autres mots, il y a un risque – un an et demi déjà depuis les dernières élections générales – qu'aucun amendement ne soit apporté à notre Constitution d'ici les prochaines élections générales. J'espère néanmoins que les choses évolueront différemment. Je passe à la réforme électorale. Le 24 avril dernier, le Cabinet a approuvé le Constitutional Review Commission Bill qui est devant nous. Le même jour, le Cabinet confirmait ; je cite le Cabinet communiqué du Prime Minister's Office – “Cabinet has taken note that the issue of electoral reform is being addressed separately.” Et c'est pourquoi les terms of reference de la Commission constitutionnelle n'incluent pas la réforme électorale, qui n'est donc pas devant la Commission constitutionnelle que nous mettons sur pied. La Commission constitutionnelle au terme de ces terms of reference sera seulement appelée à traiter des recommandations visant à améliorer le electoral process. Je cite les termes utilisés dans les terms of reference de la Commission qui est devant nous, que nous mettons sur pied. Donc je répète, la Commission constitutionnelle sera seulement appelée à traiter des recommandations visant à améliorer le electoral process ; c'est-à-dire le déroulement du vote et à consolider l'indépendance et les pouvoirs de la Commission électorale et du commissaire électoral. La réforme électorale, elle, si elle se fait sous le gouvernement actuel – ce qui est d'après moi très improbable – devrait introduire une dose de proportionnelle, éliminer l'obligation pour les candidats de déclarer leur communauté et garantir une présence féminine adéquate au Parlement. Je passe à l'élection du président de la République. Un amendement de dernière minute aux terms of reference de la Commission constitutionnelle est devant nous. Un amendement est devant nous qui propose que le président de la République soit dorénavant élu par un collège électoral et non par le Parlement comme c'est le cas actuellement. Cet amendement tardif a créé de la confusion. En effet, on ne parle pas ici d'un président élu au suffrage universel comme en France, mais d'un président élu par un collège électoral, comme en Inde où le président est élu par le Parlement national, le Lok Sabha et les parlements régionaux. Ici, cela pourrait être le Parlement et les élus régionaux. Je passe à la création d'un Senior Officials Appointment Committee qui ferait des recommandations au gouvernement concernant la nomination des Heads of Major Public Institutions. Ce n'est pas ce que j'avais proposé au gouvernement. Un Senior Officials Appointment Committee qui ne ferait que des recommandations au gouvernement ne changerait pas grand-chose. Ce que j'avais proposé s'inspirait – mais s'inspirait seulement, ne copierait pas – de ce qui existe déjà depuis des années aux Seychelles. Et je l'avais expliqué cela, aux Seychelles, c'est un Constitutional Appointment Authority, pas Committee, de cinq membres ; le président de la République nommant deux de ces cinq membres et le Leader de l'Opposition deux autres, le cinquième étant choisi par consensus pour présider ce Constitutional Appointments Authority qui lui-même sélectionne toute une série de ceux ou celles appelés à exercer de hautes responsabilités, allant de la Commission anti-corruption, à la Commission électorale en passant par l'Auditeur général, le Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation et cetera. Je termine, Madam Speaker, en demandant au gouvernement de prendre l'engagement ici et maintenant de rendre public le rapport et les recommandations de la Commission constitutionnelle que nous mettons sur pied. Je vous remercie.

Yes, hon. Attorney General! (7.01 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, as the Chief Legal Adviser of the Government, it is not my role to make the case for this Bill from a political angle. The hon. Prime Minister made that case in opening this debate and he will complete it this evening. This House is entitled to expect the Principal Legal Adviser of Government to answer the questions of law, the objections, remarks, comments that have been put forward from the other side. Let me say at the outset that I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Whip of the Opposition for putting their objections seriously, albeit, I will argue, erroneously and the hon. Members of the Opposition for putting theirs thoughtfully. What I will do is that I will take them on one at a time and I will do so as a lawyer must do, on the law and nothing but the law. Madam Speaker, allow me to draw the attention of the House to what this Bill really is and what it certainly is not, and this has been alluded to by the hon. First Member for Stanley and Rose Hill just now. It is not an amendment of the Constitution. Not a single comma, not a single word of our Constitution is being amended tonight. This Bill only establishes an independent commission to consult the nation and to take expert advice and to recommend. The report of the proposed amendments will return to this House and every Member will have his or her say and vote thereon. That is how it will be and how it should be. The hon. Leader of the Opposition opened his critique with a rather bold assertion that the Government has acted à l'envers. He used our common expression 'anba lao' because he said the choice of the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and members of the Commission preceded the formal enactment of this Bill. He invoked in passing he said, the examples of Kenya and Canada to suggest that law must always precede nomination. With respect, Madam Speaker, that argument, however eloquently presented, is factually incorrect, constitutionally unsound and contradicted by the very Commonwealth precedents he seeks to rely upon. I explain myself. Let us begin with first principles. This Bill does not purport to create the Commission ex nihilo. It provides the legal framework, the powers, the mandate, the process, the immunities and the independence guarantee under which the Commission will formally operate. The prior designation of a distinguished former Chief Justice and eminent commissioners was a statement of intent and preparedness. It signalled to the nation and the potential appointees the seriousness and urgency of this constitutional exercise. The Bill now gives that intent the force of law. The hon. Leader of the Opposition cites Kenya. So, let us look more carefully at the Kenyan example. When Kenya undertook its constitutional review process, leading to their 2010 Constitution, the Committee of Experts, the body tasked with reviewing the harmonised draft, was appointed under the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008. However, Madam Speaker, that appointment process was itself preceded by extensive governmental consultations, informal identification of candidates and public discussions about who the expert members would be before the formal gazetting. The sequence was not clean legislation, then clean appointment. It was iterative, practical and human. Then comes South Africa, a country whose constitutional transition is one of the most celebrated in Commonwealth history. The Constitutional Assembly that drafted the final Constitution of 96 was set up under the interim Constitution of 1993. Yet, crucially, many of the substantive decisions, thematic commissions and technical committees that shaped the final Constitution were assembled, briefed and commenced their deliberations during the transitional period before the final legal architecture was fully in place. No one accused then the ANC government of acting à l'envers. They acted with urgency. They acted with purpose. And they succeeded. Lastly, Canada – it is an even more instructive example. The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in British Columbia, one of the most celebrated exercises in participatory constitutional deliberation in the Commonwealth, was announced by Premier Gordon Campbell in 2002 with the terms of participation and the commitment to a Citizens’ Assembly made public before the enabling Order in Council was formally gazetted. The selection process was designed and the secretariat mobilised before the precise legal instrument was finalised. Again, intent, designation, then formal legal authority – in that sequence. Lo and behold, Madam Speaker, is it not what we are doing today? This Constitutional Review Committee does not exist until this House wills it into being and its members are not appointed until this Act is in force since it is the empowering statute that provides for their appointment. When the appointments come to be made, they will be made by the President of the Republic. Under Section 64 of our Constitution, the President will act in accordance with the advice of Cabinet or of the Prime Minister because that is the case here. That is not accidental, Madam Speaker. That is the settled architecture of our Republic. A Cabinet of Ministers that identifies in advance persons of standing, whom it intends to recommend, does no more than any responsible government does. It prepares to implement the law it asks Parliament to pass. Would the Leader of the Opposition truly have us legislate first and only then begin to wonder who on earth might serve on that Commission? A government that plans ahead is not a government with something to conceal. It is a government that means to act the moment this House has spoken. The designation is not the appointment. The appointment is an emanation of this Act, and it will follow this Act in the constitutional form that Section 64 prescribes. No more, no less. So, Madam Speaker, where does that leave the hon. Member’s argument? It leaves it awash on the shores of legality. Mauritius is not lagging behind Commonwealth practice. Instead, we are exceeding it. This Government has chosen to do more, not less. We are not content to convene this Commission by mere resolution or warrant. We are placing it on a statutory footing before this House, its independence guaranteed by Clause 4 (2) and its consultative duties written into Clause 7. Madam Speaker, we have given this House and this nation more scrutiny, more transparency and more protection than any of the precedents the hon. Member admires. He cannot praise those models in one breath and condemn us in the next for surpassing them. So much for the anba-lao argument! Let me meet head-on the insinuation lurking behind this criticism that to name the Commissioners in advance is to make them creatures of this Government. The opposite is true. That argument of his is indeed anba-lao! It was precisely because certain clauses of this reform touched the most sensitive nerves of the constitutional order – • the Office of the Presidency, • the architecture of our justice system, • the rights of the citizens against the power of the State that we sought, from the very start, persons whose independence is beyond question. And we named them openly months ahead for the whole nation to scrutinise. Openness, transparency, certainty and institutional independence, the four corners of the rule of law, which I have said time and again, we shall uphold, come what may. Madam Speaker, servility conceals its appointments. Independence publishes them. A government bent on capturing a commission does not parade its members in advance and dare the Opposition to object. It does its work in the dark. We did the opposite. The early designation is not the fingerprint of political control. It is the proof of transparency. The calibre of the persons chosen is itself the guarantee of their independence. Madam Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition also alluded to the fact, so he says, that the Government is imposing its own propositions upon the Commission; that we begin the process, as he puts it, backwards. Nothing can be further from what is actually happening. I will answer him on the law and on the record. These propositions are not imposed. They are the 18 proposals the electoral itself endorsed in November 2024, as the hon. Third Member for Grand River North West and Port Louis West reminded the House. Even then, the Commission is still free to range beyond them, for the words “inter alia” in Section 4 mean exactly what they say. To give a commission terms of reference is not to start backwards. It is to start properly. A commission with no direction is not an independent commission, Madam Speaker. It is merely a commission adrift. We want clarity and purpose. We want traction on the main subjects. There lies our wish, the wish of the people. Madam Speaker, if I may now turn to the arguments of the Opposition Chief Whip. He listed, what he called, the flaws of the Bill.

Not Chief Whip.

I am very sorry. Do not get upset. The Whip of the Opposition. I was mesmerised by you right now. He listed, what he called, the flaws of the Bill: no quorum, no qualification criteria, no voting mechanism, no independence expressly stated. Let me be blunt, to the point and clear. A statute that establishes a commission of eminent persons, but then attempts to micromanage the quorum, its order of voting, would be a statute that does not trust the very persons it appoints. Quorum and procedure are matters properly left to the Commission’s own rules as they are for Commissions the world over. There is no prescribed voting mechanism because a body of this kind proceeds whenever it can by consensus rather than by division. An independence expressly stated? Well, independence does not live in a recital, Madam Speaker. It lives in the calibre of the members, of which I have already alluded to, and in the statutory function they are given. Let me take the hon. Member to the text for fear that he may have inadvertently missed it. That provision reads and I quote – “(2) The Commission shall, in the discharge of its functions and exercise of its powers under this Act, act independently and shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.” Madam Speaker, the hon. Opposition Whip built partly his argument on an old quip that to bury an issue, you appoint the commission. Let me answer the quip with what the Bill provides. Now, you do not bury a reform by carrying it around the country in public sittings, by putting every submission on the record and set it up by an Act of Parliament. If the powers of this Commission are given by the people, acting by and through its elected Members, it is a legal imperative that it must report back to Parliament. Now, he cited the Truth and Justice Commission, whose findings, he said, gathered dust and were not implemented. But the cure for a report that was ignored is not to refuse to commission the report. It is to bind its findings to this Chamber, which is exactly what we are doing now, today. The hon. Fourth Member for Port Louis North and Montagne Longue also found fault with our timing, perhaps overlooking the fact that we brought more than 30 Bills to this House last year. He said our Government promised reform within six months, and we are still here after 18. That simply is not correct. What was promised was a setting up of a commission within six months. What is true, however, is that we are late in coming to Parliament with this Bill. But we are late, Madam Speaker, precisely because we declined to do this exercise carelessly because we took the counsel of a former Chief Justice and a former DPP to get the framework right, and let me reassure him. He need not lie awake over a commission that never dies, a money pit that outlives its purpose because a body created by statute for a defined task is functus officio the moment it has reported. It is the most temporary of institutions. Its permanence is one thing he need not fear. Madam Speaker, the hon. Opposition Whip next said that we were wrong to have thrown every reform into one basket, and in doing so, paralysed those that could move quickly. He would have the statute itself sort out the mature reforms from the complex ones. I understand the instinct, but it is the wrong hand on the knife. Whether a reform is truly ripe for immediate enactment or needs deeper study is a judgment of substance, and it is the very judgment we are appointing these commissioners to make and speed is not lost. Nothing in this framework forbids the Commission from issuing an interim report on whatever it feels is ready. The stage report referred to by the hon. Member is indeed that interim report, which framework already is allowed in this Bill. Let us take his own prime example, the judiciary. He said the programme promised a superior Court of Appeal on Lord Mackay's model. Yet section 4(k) speaks only of a court within the Supreme Court and that word, he says, betrays the promise. Madam Speaker, it does not. Section 4(k) is a term of reference. It is not the constitutional text that will create the court. It tells the Commission where to look. It does not pre-write the architecture the Commission will recommend, nor the amendment this House will probably enact. If only a distinct and institutionally separate court will truly secure judicial independence, and there is real force in what Lord Mackay said, then that is the case the hon. Opposition Whip should make to the Commission. “within the Supreme Court”, as far as I can say, means literally that the Court of Appeal will be an extension of the Supreme Court, as we have it today, with the Chief Justice remaining the apex authority of the Supreme Court. Madam Speaker, may I now come to the point raised by the hon. First Member for Vacoas-Floreal on electoral reform. Entre autres, la fameuse dose de proportionnel, the representation of women in Parliament, the balance of our constituencies and the end of the mandatory community declaration. The hon. Member regrets that none of these is entrusted to the Commission. But I must say with respect that she answers her point in the very breath in which she makes it. For the hon. Member herself told this House that removing these matters from the text to be treated separately and more swiftly could be a good thing, because our electoral law must not be amended on the eve of a poll, because the subject matter has been the object of so much work in the past, that we may move towards the consensus that has emerged without reinventing the wheel. Madam Speaker, I could not have put the Government's own reasoning better. That is precisely why electoral reform is not referred to the expert Commission. Indeed, one cannot read either the words ‘electoral reform’ or the words ‘proportional representation’ in this Bill. In fact, on electoral reform, the consultations have already taken place. The public has already been invited to file its representations. So, to send a question that has already been consulted upon back to this Commission would not be reform. It would be delay dressed up as diligence. It would expose us to the very danger the hon. Member warns against, namely tampering with the rules of the contest to close the contest itself. Madam Speaker, electoral reform is a highly strung political matter, and perhaps not fit for the works of the Constitutional Review Commission. That Commission, Madam Speaker, will do the deep deliberative work that the new generation of rights in our institutional architecture require. Electoral reform, on the other hand, already ripe, will proceed on its own track and arrive before this House in its own right. The hon. Member need not fear that it has been forgotten. She will have every opportunity to hold the Government to it when that Bill is laid before the House. Madam Speaker, the hon. Third Member for Beau Bassin and Petite Rivière has pressed, on his side, for more clarity on the electoral college for the election of the President. So, let me outline things after what has been said by the First Member from Stanley and Rose Hill. An electoral college is no more than a defined body of electoral representatives who together choose the Head of State in place of a bare majority of this Assembly. I was aghast to hear political commentators, not later than yesterday night, opining on the form it will take, jumping the gun and making ill-advised assertions. Let me make it clear, nothing has been decided yet. We must await the report and the recommendations first and foremost. We have a number of examples around us. India elects its President this way, Germany, its federal President, small islands, Republics such as Trinidad and Tobago do the same. In each case, the purpose is the one our Government Programme states to give the President a mandate, not more powers. A mandate from a broader base so that the first citizen of the Republic belongs to the whole nation and not to the party of the day. This does not create an executive presidency. The executive powers remain with Cabinet, led by the hon. Prime Minister answerable to this House. Nothing in this proposal changes that position. The hon. Opposition Whip for his part would have parties simply disclose their nominees for President, Prime Minister and Minister of Finance before polling day. That is an idea worth placing before the Commission. But it is only an argument about which broad base is best, not an argument against having one. As for who sits in that college, by what criteria and how it votes, the very questions the hon. Third Member for Beau Bassin and Petite Rivière fairly asked, that, Madam Speaker, is precisely what we ask the Commission to settle. We do not ask this House to adopt an electoral college today. We ask only that the Commission examines it with public and expert input and to report. An Opposition that believes in checks and balances should welcome that inquiry, not fear it. Madam Speaker, the hon. Opposition Whip warned that this Commission must not become a shield behind which Government hides. But a shield by definition is a thing one hides behind. But we are not using a shield. We are asking the country to do the very opposite. We are asking the people to step out and be heard. So, let me close, not with an argument, but with an invitation; to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, to the hon. Whip of the Opposition, to the hon. Members of the Opposition, to all electoral representatives of this House, and to the Mauritian public – I say this; Stand up, be counted, speak out, because your voice matters. Bring your suggestions, bring your ideas, bring your objections, lay them before the Commission and watch the Commission weigh them on their merits. The hon. Members on this side, Madam Speaker, have answered the politics of this Bill. Some have yet to do it. I, for one, have sought to answer the legal angle. And under law, Madam Speaker, this Bill is sound, it is constitutional, and it is the only proper, lawful first step towards the new Constitution that this nation aspires to and has asked this Government to deliver. This moment, Madam Speaker, is indeed a historical one, and an opportunity for every one of us, from all walks of life, who want to take part, to do so, in order that we may leave the legacy of a better Constitution for future generations. With these words, Madam Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House.

Thank you. Hon. Minister of Housing and Lands! (7.25 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I turn to the substance of this Bill, Madam Speaker, I hope with your permission and the permission of my hon. colleagues on all both sides, allow me a personal remark. I cannot rise today to address the House without feeling the weight, very keenly so, of those that came before. 61 years ago, at Lancaster House, my late grandfather, Sir Abdool Razack Mohamed, Leader of the “CAM”, in alliance with the Labour Party of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, sat at the table; at that table as the foundation of our independence was negotiated. 59 years ago, my late father, Yousuf Mohamed, was elected to the inaugural Legislative Assembly at the General Elections of 1967. Today in 2026, I find myself standing before this House embarking upon a review of that very Constitution as an hon. Member of the Labour Party led by hon. Dr. Navin Ramgoolam, Prime Minister. I do not say that to claim any inheritance of merit. Madam Speaker, merit in this House is earned and not bequeathed. The work of building a constitutional order is not the work of a single generation. Those who framed it back in the days could not have imagined Mauritius of 2026, and all of us here today will not be able to imagine Mauritius of 2068. Madam Speaker, a Bill modest in its length but monumental in ambition for what we begin today is not the amendment of a clause, nor the fixing of a single provision. What we begin today is the most serious, the most structured, and the most participatory examination of our supreme law; the law of this country, we have ever undertaken since 12 March 1968. Our Constitution is now 58 years old. It has served us well, but even the finest vessel, after 58 years at sea, must be brought into dry dock, not to be discarded, but examined, repaired, modernised, and made ready for the voyage ahead. The conversation must start now. This is what the Bill does, no more and no less. Madam Speaker, our Constitution has been amended on some two dozen occasions since independence. Each amendment has its own story and some must be told honestly today. In 1969, we made the first operational adjustments after independence. In 1970s, we lowered the voting age from 21 years old to 18 years old; a genuinely democratic act. A young person watching this debate today votes because of that reform. In 1982, Madam Speaker, one month after the famous “16-nil” of June 1982; if I remember correctly, it was the 11th June 1982. I remember. Act 2 of 1982 was passed through this very House. It amended Section 113, entre autres, of the Constitution. The change appeared technical. The words, I quote – “For such term not being less than four years” were replaced by I quote – “For such term not exceeding four years”. Five words, Madam Speaker. Five words that quietly weaken the security of tenure of the Director of Public Prosecutions if appointed under Section 113. Five words that weaken the security of tenure of those officials such as the Commissioner of Police, the Director of Audit, the Electoral Commissioner, and every sentinel of our democracy. Five words that made those guardians of the Republic appointed under Section 113, vulnerable to pressure from whichever Government held office. Some have even called it the ratchet effect. The slow, cumulative weakening of institutional independence that we have lived with for 44 years. That, Madam Speaker, is how democracy is wounded, not in a single blow, but in five carefully chosen words passed in haste while the nation celebrated a landslide. In 1991 and 1992, we became a Republic, achieved without a referendum by the three-quarters consensus in this Assembly, providing that “win political” will exists, great reforms indeed are possible. In 1995, we abolished the death penalty. In 2001, we gave Rodrigues the autonomy it deserved. In 2014, the country attempted a serious electoral reform that died for want of consensus. Many bear scars from that episode. We should not pretend otherwise. The lesson is clear. When we patch in haste, we weaken. When we reform in consensus, we strengthen. This Bill chooses consensus over haste. Some have referred to the need to go faster, but let us, I say again, choose consensus for it to strengthen and for us to succeed. I now turn to the heart of any constitutional debate. The everyday Mauritian in whose name we sit in this Chamber, to the student preparing for their exams, this Bill is about your future. The Commission will examine a constitutional right to quality education and a freedom of information principle that will let you request the data shaping the decisions affecting your life. To the worker in the textile factory, I say, to the nurse on the night shift, the bus driver, the cane cutter, the call centre agent; this Bill is about your dignity at work. The Commission will examine enforceable rights to health, social protection, and fair conditions. The expanded Public Bodies Appeal Tribunal will mean that when you are passed over for a promotion you earned, you will have a real forum to demand justice, not a closed door. To every young Mauritian who has applied for a public sector job and felt that connections mattered more than competence, this Bill is for you. The Senior Official’s Appointment Committee, that is but a reflection of what is happening in the United Kingdom, will ensure that the leadership of our great public institutions is determined by merit, not patronage. The day is coming when fairness in the public sector hiring will not be a hope, it will be a right. Some see everything as being dark. I have to believe that there is light. To the fisherman whose catch is collapsing, the diver who has watched our reefs bleach, the villager fighting a polluter, the young activist defending, for instance, the Black River Gorges, the Bill is for you. For the first time in our history, the Commission will examine the rights of nature. Combined with public interest litigation and class actions, an ordinary citizen, a small association, a village, could go to Court on behalf of the lagoon itself. The era in which our environment has no voice in our courtrooms is coming to an end. I see the smiles of some of my friends. To every citizen who has asked the government a question and received silence, this Bill is for you. For decades, under every government, including those I have formed part of, Mauritius has promised a freedom of information and delivered none, the state of affairs stops now. It ends here. To those who have called for the right to referendums on matters of fundamental national importance, this Bill opens that conversation. The people's voice must not only be heard at elections, Madam Speaker. It must be heard on the great constitutional questions of the day. Allow me, Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister for Agro-Industry and also the hon. Minister for Social Security and some hon. Members did make reference to the Best Loser System. I believe the hon. Minister of Social Security also mentioned it well. The word Best Loser System was pronounced by hon. Minister of Agro-Industry and other hon. Members. I am talking about those who spoke today. Madam Speaker, I come now and because of that, I shall refer with reference to clause 4 (a) and 4 (r) of the Bill. I come now with the greatest care and respect to a matter on which this Chamber has been quiet for a long time. I come to it not to accuse, not to assign blame, not to reopen old wounds. I come to it because a serious constitutional review cannot in good conscience set it aside and because it is better, surely, that we raise it ourselves in this Chamber with the dignity it deserves than that it be raised for us by others in less hospitable forums. I am referring, Madam Speaker, to the figures from 1972 on which part of our electoral architecture and processes continue to rest. The hon. Minister of Social Security made reference to the United Nations and to the Privy Council. Those were issues that were also referred to in the pronouncements. I do not propose this afternoon to pronounce on what should be done. Far from it. I propose only to ask questions. Questions which I believe every hon. Member on every bench of this House must privately have asked themselves at one time or another. Questions which the commission in the course of its work will be far better placed than this Chamber to answer. May I, Madam Speaker, ask: is it sustainable in the 21st century for the demographic basis of any part of our constitutional order to rest on figures collected back in 1972? What does it say to the international community? To those friends of Mauritius who, in July 2012, in the case of Narain and others, expressed concerns under Article 25 of the International Covenant on the Civil and Political Rights that 14 years have passed without having taken up that conversation in earnest. If we cannot have this discussion now in the context of the most comprehensive constitutional review since 1968 with a commission of experts, with public consultation built into every stage, with the protection of the three quarters majority, then, when, Madam Speaker, can we ever have it? I do not pretend that these are easy questions. I know they touch on matters about which sincere people, including dear friends across this Chamber, hold deep and differing views. Views formed by our particular history, by the memory of difficult times, by a profound love of country and fear of disturbing what holds us together. I respect those views. I share many of those instincts myself. But I will put a question further to the House. Is it possible that the path of postponement, of leaving those matters perpetually for another day, another government, another generation, is itself a path with costs we have not properly counted? Costs that fall on us, not in this Chamber, but on the ordinary citizen in whose name we sit. That, Madam Speaker, is a question I believe the Commission is uniquely well placed to consider. Madame la présidente, permettez-moi sur cette question de m'adresser à la Chambre dans notre autre langage de travail, car ce que je vais dire touche à un principe d'équité qui dépasse toute langue et toute communauté. Ce projet de loi propose de renforcer la protection contre la discrimination. L'article 16 de notre constitution protège déjà chaque Mauricien contre la discrimination. Nous avons ratifié des instruments internationaux qui nous obligent à surveiller et à signaler la discrimination dans notre société. Mais je voudrais poser avec respect une question à cette Chambre. Comment évalue-t-on dans la pratique le respect de ce droit fondamental? Un citoyen qui soupçonne avoir été désavantagé peut présenter son cas individuel. Mais peut-il, dans l'état actuel des choses, démontrer un schéma structurel? Une famille qui estime que son quartier est mal desservi par l'investissement public, peut-elle le prouver autrement que par l'anecdote? Un jeune diplômé qui se sent exclu des opportunités peut-il appuyer son sentiment sur des données officielles? Tous ces Mauriciens jouissent d'un droit constitutionnel contre la discrimination. Aucun d'entre eux ne dispose pleinement des outils probatoires nécessaires pour le faire valoir. C'est là, Madame la présidente, le paradoxe que ce projet de loi met en lumière. Un pays peut-il en toute cohérence prétendre combattre une chose qu'il refuse de mesurer? Un droit qui ne peut être vérifié empiriquement, n'est-il pas un droit exercé dans l’obscurité? Et les premières victimes de cette obscurité ne sont-elles pas justement les citoyens ordinaires qui n'ont pas eu d'autres moyens que de faire entendre leur voix? Je pose ces questions, Madame la présidente, en toute humilité. Je ne prétends pas y avoir les réponses définitives, mais je crois que ce sont des questions que la commission ne peut pas en toute conscience écarter. Madame la présidente, nous ne sommes pas seuls à devoir penser ces questions. D'autres démocraties pluralistes, dans des contextes parfois plus délicats que la nôtre, ont eu à se les poser. Examinons brièvement et avec humilité ce qu'elles ont fait. Singapour, une société profondément plurielle comme le nôtre, collecte des données démographiques détaillées dans chacun de ses recensements. Elle s'en sert pour concevoir sa politique de logement, sa politique éducative et son système de représentation. Singapour est aujourd'hui l'une des sociétés plurielles les plus cohésives du monde. La collecte des données n'a pas divisé la nation. Au contraire, elle a permis à l'État de démontrer, chiffres à l'appui, qu'il prétend qu'il prend au sérieux l'expérience de chaque communauté. Le Canada, de même. Le Royaume-Uni utilise l’ethnic monitoring dans l'emploi, la santé et la police. C'est précisément cette pratique qui a permis, à la suite de l'enquête Stephen Lawrence et du rapport Macpherson, d’identifier le racisme institutionnel dans la police britannique et de déclencher les réformes qui ont suivi. Sans ces données, ces réformes auraient été impossibles. La transparence, Madame la présidente, n'a pas affaibli l'unité britannique. Elle l'a rendue plus honnête. Je ne propose pas que Maurice copie l'un ou l'autre de ces modèles. Chaque démocratie doit trouver sa propre voie, adaptée à son histoire, à sa sensibilité, à sa réalité. Mais permettez-moi, Madame la présidente, de poser cette question: si toutes ces démocraties pluralistes ont jugé que la mesure était compatible avec et même nécessaire à la cohésion nationale, sur quelle base soutenons-nous à Maurice que le silence statistique servirait mieux à notre unité? C'est une question, encore une fois, que je laisse à la commission le soin d'examiner avec sérieux, avec respect et avec la sagesse de tirer les leçons utiles de l'expérience internationale tout en demeurant fidèle à notre identité mauricienne. Madam Speaker, I am not, this afternoon proposing, any particular outcome. I am proposing only that the Commission be given the political space, which it has, and the political invitation from this Chamber to examine those matters with the seriousness they deserve. Should it find a path forward and an appropriate one, that path could rest on principles that any hon. Member of this House on either side could reasonably support. A path that is voluntary, not compulsory, where citizens choose whether and how to identify, including the option to identify simply as Mauritian. A path that is strictly purpose limited, used for measuring fairness and designing policy, better policy. Never, I underline that, never for electoral profiling. Never for political mobilisation. Never for surveillance. A path that reports only in aggregated form, illuminating patterns, never exposing individuals. A path, and I underline that as well, that decouples any such measurement from our electoral mechanisms separating the legitimate questions of equity from the contested questions of representation. And a path independently overseen by a statutory body insulated from political interference and accountable to this Parliament. Let me be clear what this Bill is not. This Bill does not amend the Constitution. Not a single comma is changed. The Commission only recommends as has been expatiated upon before me. Every proposed amendment must come back to this Chambre. Every single one must command the required majority the Constitution rightly demands. Nothing becomes law without the consent of this Assembly. This Bill is a constitutional invitation to govern on those matters as a nation rather than as fractions. I extend that invitation today, in good faith, and in the hope that on questions of this gravity, we may yet rise above the everyday battles of this Chambre. In 50 years’ time, historians will not remember the procedural skirmishes of any given session. They will remember whether in 2026 this Parliament had the courage to renew the foundation of the nation. They will ask whether we repaired what was broken. They will ask whether we had the wisdom and the gentleness to take up the questions that has remained too long unasked. They will ask whether we understood that the unity worth preserving is not the unity of silence, but the unity of demonstrable fairness. The unity of a Republic that trusts its citizens with the truth about itself. I do not want to be amongst one of those who failed to seize this moment. I pray that this Assembly is not an Assembly that lets it pass. This Bill is our chance. A chance and we should seize it. I commend this Bill to this House. May God bless the Republic of Mauritius.

Yes, Hon. Deputy Prime Minister! (7.46 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I will not be long. The Constitutional Review Commission Bill before us is not simply another item on our legislative agenda. It is a significant milestone for the evolution of our democracy. We have the duty, today, to do more than just make law. We are doing what we promised to the citizens of this country on the 10th of November 2024. We promised to legally address the violations of our rights as citizens which we endured during a decade. While commending the Bill, the hon. Prime Minister clearly set out the scope of this proposed legislation, that is, the setting up of a Commission to review the Constitution. Madam Speaker, une Constitution qui a fonctionné dans le passé, l'était dans un contexte particulier. Nos leaders qui nous ont gouverné dans le passé, les tribuns ont respecté la Constitution et les différentes conventions de notre vie démocratique. Mais quand l'État est entre les mains de ceux qui n'ont aucune intégrité ou qui ignorent volontairement ou involontairement les conventions, cela crée des dommages profonds à la nation. Nous en avons fait l'expérience dans le passé. Et c'est précisément la raison que nous nous devons de faire empêcher qu'aucun autre gouvernement ne slide into the kind of creeping authoritarianism this country endured between 2014 and 2024. Je me réfère ici aux dérives parlementaires du passé. Ce n'était pas seulement des attaques contre une institution, mais surtout une atteinte on the very forum of democratic accountability. Suspensions, les voix des élus étouffés. Suspensions, not for a day, Madam Speaker, not for a Sitting, but for the remaining session. The voice of the electorate was deliberately silenced. Today, this is no longer the case. Thank you for that, Madam Speaker. This said, allow me to move to another issue. Madam Speaker, every time the MMM has been in Government, it has used that position to consolidate the country's democratic system in terms of permanent and tangible reforms. The MMM has never played a decorative role in Government, and we have no intention of playing that role today. The amendment that made the postponement of General Elections constitutionally impossible is our doing. Today, I wonder what the MSM would have done had we not amended the Constitution for mandatory elections on due dates. However, we should have extended the amendment to Local Government Elections. Madam Speaker, on the electoral reform, the MSM was dead against. On ne pouvait pas dire tout va très bien, Madame la marquise. It cannot be said that all was rosy in 2000- 2005. Le gouvernement de 2000-2005 a raté une occasion en or de concrétiser la réforme électorale. Had we completed the reform then, much of the recul démocratique of the last decade could have been avoided. Si cela avait été fait, nous aurions évité la pagaille qui a fait reculer notre pays entre 2014 et 2024. L'histoire retiendra cet énorme gâchie. Madam Speaker, the MMM has been campaigning for electoral reform since 1986. A first document, a fair and workable electoral system was published because we understood since then, that there is no real democracy if Parliament does not reflect the will of the electorate. Because the question was never about what suited or suits the MMM. The question was and still is about what best serves the country. The objective is the same today. However, Madam Speaker, this is not the issue today as the electoral reform will be taken up separately as decided by the Government sometime back. Madam Speaker, with regard to the possible introduction of an electoral college for the election of the President of the Republic. The question is, what kind of society do we want to leave as legacy to our future generations? In a society as diverse and plural as ours, it is important that the process leading to the election, the choice of our Head of State, inspires confidence across all sections of the population. Exploring an electoral college mechanism could encourage broader consensus, greater political maturity and a more balanced approach to national leadership. This is about reinforcing trust in our democratic institutions and ensuring that the presidency continues to embody the dignity, neutrality and unity of the Republic. The Office of the President must remain a symbol of unity, stability and national cohesion. This institution rises above political divides and speaks to the collective identity of the Mauritian people. I look forward to the Commission's work and to a thoughtful national debate on this very important issue. Madam Speaker, some voices and media narratives have attempted to attach the label of a second republic to the process of the possible introduction of an Electoral College for the election of the President. The suggestion is clearly intended to instil fear. C'est le même refrain qui avait été utilisé en 2014 et c'est un acte de mauvaise foi. Allow me to be absolutely clear. This Bill does not amend the Constitution. It establishes an independent Commission to consult, examine and recommend; nothing more and nothing less. The final word remains with this august Assembly. Madam Speaker, when a constitution is comprehensively reviewed and modernised, it is entirely natural to speak of a new constitutional chapter. Ce n'est pas une rupture, c'est un renouveau, une renaissance. La France en est à sa 5eme République. L'Inde a amendé sa constitution plus d'une centaine de fois. L'évolution constitutionnelle d'une nation n'est pas une menace. C'est un signe de maturité démocratique. Il y a une différence profonde entre les deux et ceux qui les confondent délibérément le font pour effrayer plutôt que pour informer. Substantive reforms will be introduced and not cosmetic ones. Madam Speaker, on a separate note, I believe that the Constitutional Review Commission must also examine whether our framework adequately supports the protection of women, girls, children and vulnerable persons, not merely in principle, but in practice. Formal equality, written in law, is necessary, but not sufficient. What is needed is substantive equality, constitutional space for the special measures that address structural weakness wherever it is. Madam Speaker, Mauritius is today the only country in the SADC region that has not signed the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development. This is not for want of commitment to the values enshrined in the Protocol. Historically, concerns arose in relation to constitutional and legal rights provisions, particularly where the Protocol contemplated measures going beyond the existing Mauritian constitutional framing of equality and non- discrimination. Earlier statutory impediments, including those linked to child marriage, Article 8 on marriage and family rights of the Protocol, have since been addressed through legislative reform with the Children's Act 2020 repealing the Civil Code provisions on marriage below 18 years old. This matter is therefore no longer an issue for accession to the Protocol. The remaining obstacles relate primarily to constitutional and legislative alignment, including the framing of equality and equity in the Constitution, family rights, access to economic opportunity and women's representation in decision-making amongst others. Madam Speaker, I understand that Mauritius did not sign the 2008 Protocol because our principal concern lay with part 2 on constitutional and legal rights, especially Article 5, which referred to affirmative action. This was considered not to be in line with the Mauritian constitutional framework, given Section 16 of the Constitution on non-discrimination. Following the regional review process, the 2016 revised Protocol replaced the term affirmative action with special measures and introduced updated targets and additional provisions. The work of the Constitutional Review Commission, which is going to be set up with the Bill, with the legislation, may provide precisely the framework needed to address these issues and to enable Mauritius to finally take its rightful place alongside every other SADC Member State. That, Madam Speaker, is not a technical footnote, it is a matter of national dignity. These matters have already been flagged by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family Welfare. Madam Speaker, the objects of the Bill are to empower the President to appoint a Constitutional Review Commission to examine and make recommendations on constitutional reforms, including the protection of fundamental rights and the consolidation of democracy and institutions. I conclude by saying the following; the Commission will be independent. Every citizen willing to be heard, will be heard. Every institution, every political party as well as the civil society will have the opportunity to have their say in that Commission. At the end of the day, it will be their Constitution, the people's Constitution. Madam Speaker, I therefore fully support the Bill. I thank you.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Prime Minister! (8.01 p.m.)

Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, when I introduced the Constitutional Review Commission Bill, I said that constitutional reform cannot and should not be the monopoly of politicians alone. It concerns the entire nation. I am glad, Madam Speaker, to see that so many hon. Members have taken part in the debate. In fact, I tried to count, there were no less than 28 interventions of hon. Members who participated in that vibrant debate. Let me then thank all of those who contributed to this debate. It is now time to take stock of what this House, on both sides, have had to say and to sum up what we can take away from these three days of deliberations. What we have learnt, Madam Speaker, is this: the first thing is that on the essential question – the common ground is that after nearly six decades, the time has come for Mauritius to take a fresh look at our supreme law, our Constitution. There is an agreement on the need for constitutional reform. There are disagreements, of course, and they are real. However, they are not about the need for reforms, but they are rather about the scope of the reforms and the timeline of these reforms. Madam Speaker, I have listened to the range of voices that have spoken in favour of the principle, and from the Opposition benches, the hon. Opposition Chief Whip himself accepted that the question is not whether reform is necessary, but how it is to be done and the whole process. When the Government and the Opposition agree on the destination and differ only on the road, it is for us to take the road together as far as our political differences will allow. Because let us not forget, I say it again, that reform is for the country at large. Let me remind this House, that what we are proposing forms part of the Government Programme 2025-2029, A Bridge to the Future. On the very first pages, this Government undertook to appoint a Constitutional Review Commission to make recommendations– I emphasise on the words ‘to make recommendations’ – on constitutional and electoral reforms and on the enhanced protection of fundamental rights. The Programme named various matters which are now before the House: one of them is the Electoral College to give the President a mandate from a broader base. Let me clarify a point that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and also the former Deputy Prime Minister made, the remark that the amendment concerning the Electoral College for the election of the President was circulated on the very day the Bill was being introduced. And the Leader of the Opposition asked whether it was an oubli. No, it was not an oubli. I will tell you. There were queries that this might lead to all sorts of canvassing – we have seen how the MSM operates – canvassing for personal gains, influence peddling, money exchange. We have seen all this. So, there were some people, including me, who thought that this might be controversial. But all said and done, we decided that we should allow this point to be debated and examined by the Commission. And the whole point is that the Commission looks at all the proposals. It was in our manifesto, in our Government Programme of 2025-2029. So, therefore, it was decided at Cabinet level that it is better to have the debate and let the Commission examine it. Madam Speaker, the Attorney General has explained very clearly what an Electoral College is. He made reference to the Republics of Trinidad and Tobago, and great democracies like India and Germany, how they use it to choose a Head of State who belongs to the whole nation, not to the governing party of the day. I will not repeat the comparison, Madam Speaker. But I should address the insinuation that this conceals some personal ambition. The Deputy Prime Minister has just made reference to it. I do not know what kind of fertile imagination people might have. Instead of looking at the text, they become hysterical. That insinuation does not deserve the dignity of a response, Madam Speaker. The terms of reference make no mention of the powers of the President of the Republic having to be looked into. None, whatsoever. The Office of the President of the Republic will remain what the office has always been, that is, a guardian of the Constitution and a symbol of our unity, while the Executive answers, as it must, to this elected House. That is all. The Bill also goes on to introduce mandatory holding of local elections, which were postponed. Hon. Ramful made reference to it. Hon. Ajay Gunness made reference to it. I think, hon. Bhagwan also made reference to it. They were postponed three times, Madam Speaker. The Bill also introduces the protection of new generation rights: environmental, technology, health, education, and the rights of nature, and the enshrinement of the values of peace, justice and liberty that we pledge in our national anthem. It promises to consolidate the constitutional right to privacy and to outlaw the mass covert surveillance of citizens. As hon. Ramful said, people seem to have short memories. He referred to the IBA Act, if I am not mistaken. But the MSM regime also tried to control what people were saying on social media, the internet and everything. There were protests across the country, especially the young were protesting. And what did they do? They withdrew their propositions. You would think it is a laudable action that they did. No, Madam Speaker. What they did behind the back of the people, what they did, in fact, surreptitiously, and did it without going through Parliament. Behind our back, this was done – massive surveillance of all the people of this country. I said it before. The Bill also promises to reinforce the independence and the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will now be the ultimate person to decide whether to prosecute or not to prosecute. We have already re-put the powers of the DPP as the Constitution says, but the DPP will now have exclusive prosecutorial authority. No one else can decide whether to prosecute or not to prosecute, as it should be. As the previous regime tried to change, I think, hon. Dr. Boolell made reference to that; how they did it. This Government, Madam Speaker, stands by its promises whatever may be said. The demand for constitutional reforms did not originate from a meeting in Cabinet. This is not the agenda of a political party that hon. Members are being asked to support. It is the agenda of the nation. This Bill is nothing more and nothing less than the continuation of our solemn undertaking in November 2024, and we got a mandate for it. Madam Speaker, the Opposition has pressed essentially three concerns, and let me address them in turn. On the sequence of events – the complaint that persons were designated before the law was passed. Hon. Uteem addressed that concern. The Attorney General has set out the constitutional position under Section 64. Madam Speaker, we sought the counsel of the former Chief Justice and a former Director of Public Prosecutions on the very shape of this Bill because we wanted it to be better, not because we wanted to bind anyone's hands. We have not done so. On the fear of delay – the warning that this should become “a vehicle for delay” as recommendations of the past commissions have been cited. I say to the hon. Chief Whip, hon. A. Duval...

No, the hon. Whip of the Opposition!

Whip of the Opposition, sorry. Again...

(Interruptions)

I take the warning seriously. The hon. former Deputy Prime Minister also spoke about this problem of delay. But I ask the House to take note of the proposed remedy of the hon. Opposition Whip. He says we should do an interim report on the simpler reforms followed by a full report. It is not an argument against this Bill. It is not. And besides, what we want to do, exactly what the former Deputy Prime Minister is saying, we want to avoid delay. We do not want to create delay. We do not want to have never-ending debates. On a lot of things already we have spoken. On the independence of the Commission – the charge is that we will impose an agenda through the list in section 4. Madam Speaker, I will simply say this. As I said, hon. Uteem clarified the issue very well. He explained the constitutional role of the President and the role of Cabinet. The House will appreciate that the Terms of Reference are far-reaching and deal with fundamental democratic and human rights issues. Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge that the speeches from the Opposition were in substance, from what I understand, in favour of the ambition of this reform; for the rights of nature, for social and economic rights, for the citizen's privacy, for the transparency, for honest reckoning with the place of women and the vulnerable in our Republic. Hon. Subron has many times spoken of the rights of nature that need to be protected. I may add that rights go together with duties. We should not forget that either. May I also respond to what hon. Joanna Bérenger said. Good question! Why the electoral reform is not part of the remit of the Bill? I must say, and quite rightly, the former Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that electoral reform should be done separately. We agreed with it. I agreed with it as well, because the danger is, you reopen a debate that has already taken place, and it would be never-ending. We already had large consultations, and, again, we have had on this matter. In any case, electoral reform too will have to be debated in this House at the end of the day. And let me assure our friends from Rodrigues, Rodrigues is not going to be forgotten, it will be part of that reform. Madam Speaker, as I emphasised, the case for reviewing the Constitution does not belong to the Government. It does not belong to the Opposition either. It belongs to the whole Republic. Some, both in this House and outside, have argued that this whole enterprise is going to be eyewash - a Commission appointed, as some cynics are saying, they will bury the very thing it pretends to examine. I think the hon. Attorney General spoke about this, about the architecture of the Bill. No Government that wishes to bury constitutional reform invites, as we are doing now, the entire nation to delve, to debate, to discuss the process and the future content. As the hon. Attorney General rightly pointed out, one does not bury a problem by holding public sittings, and public sittings across the country, by inviting every citizen, every party, every union, every NGO to put their case on record, by undertaking to bring back the results to this House in the full glare of debate. We are not going to hide it but the cynic's danger is real, let's not shy away from it, but the cynic's remedy – to stand aside, not to participate – as some have done on electoral reforms. I invite every Member of this House and every Mauritian to do exactly what has to be done, that is, to be an actor, to participate in that debate. Madam Speaker, I opened the debate by saying that a Constitution alone does not save a democracy. What saves it is the strength of its institutions and the vigilance of its citizens, as hon. Dr. Ms Jeetun, rightly pointed out. This debate, and the wider debate now alive in the press and among the public, has been an exercise in exactly that vigilance, and we are better for it. Independent strong institutions are the litmus test of a democracy. As hon. Dr. Ms Jeetun rightly said, we are not rewriting history, but we are preparing for the future. We are building the bridge to the future, Madam Speaker. At the time of our independence, Sir Seewoosagur told this nation that we had chosen the democratic way of life, to be guided by fair play, by justice and the rule of law. We are, as hon. Junior Minister Narsinghen said, a liberal democracy. The Constitution of 1968 has served us well. Hon. Ramful is right, it was not imposed totally on us. There were wide debates, discussions, but it has served us well that Constitution. It has also, over time, nearly six decades now, exposed vulnerabilities of our time that we cannot and should not ignore. As I said when introducing the Bill, a Constitution cannot remain frozen in time while society is evolving. Some people are saying you should not touch the Constitution at all. It is wrong. A Constitution is a living instrument. It must be adapted to the realities of today. I like the reference hon. Dr. Ms Jeetun made to the compass on a ship. You know the direction, it shows the way, but you must adapt to the changing conditions when you are at sea. Madam Speaker, we will not reopen the debate on electoral reform. As I said, this has already been done. Although, I must add, and I did say that in my introduction, there are certain matters that the Commission will examine. For example, to strengthen the powers of the Electoral Commissioner and the Electoral Supervisory Commission. The Commission will have to examine the package of reforms; they can make comments. The Electoral Commissioner and the ESC, for example, they have made comments. I have circulated this in Cabinet. We did not see it that way, but there are unintended consequences sometimes, about the non-declaration of your community. They have pointed this out. This is why this cannot stand alone. We have to have the whole package of electoral reform to make it. Otherwise, what hon. Shakeel Mohamed said, he mentioned this, just the one bit alone does not stand; it has to be the whole. The Government, and we intend to do it, Madam Speaker, has kept the promise it made to establish the Commission. Je dirais, Madame la présidente, le projet de loi traduit directement un engagement pris dans le programme gouvernemental 2025-2029. Le projet de loi institue une commission indépendante chargée de revoir notre loi suprême, notre constitution, de proposer des réformes majeures qui devront être votées ici. Et moi, je l'espère. I can understand the worries of the former Deputy Prime Minister that it may go on for ages, two years, three years, four years or whatever, and you have another election. Moi, je l'espère, Madame la présidente, qu’avant que nous célébrions le 60e anniversaire de notre indépendance, la réforme sera là. It now falls to this House to let the Commission do its work. It now falls to the nation to make its voice heard within it. We have to move forward, Madam Speaker, with the reforms. It is a defining moment in our history. With these words, Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 (Functions and powers of Commission) Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendment in clause 4 – In clause 4, in subclause (1), by inserting, after paragraph (f), the following new paragraph, existing paragraphs (g) to (s) being renumbered as paragraphs (h) to (t), respectively – (g) the creation of an Electoral College to elect the President of the Republic, in order to increase the legitimacy and independence of the office; Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The title and enacting clause were agreed to. The Bill, as amended, was agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Constitutional Review Commission Bill (No.VI of 2026) was read a third time and passed.

Hon. Prime Minister, adjournment!