First Reading On motion made and seconded the Constitutional Review Commission Bill, (No. VI of 2026) was read a first time. Second Reading THE ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. V OF 2026) Order for Second Reading read.

The hon. Minister of Information Technology, Communication and Innovation, Dr. A. Ramtohul! (4.21 p.m.) The Minister of Information Technology, Communication and Innovation (Dr. A. Ramtohul): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill (No. V of 2026) be read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to present the Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill. This amendment Bill represents a significant advancement in modernising the legal structure for electronic transactions in Mauritius. Its goal is to make sure our laws adapt to technological evolution, facilitate business activities and enhance our reputation as a reliable hub in the digital economy. The Electronic Transactions Act, enacted in 2000, was a pioneer for its era. Nonetheless, the digital environment has transformed considerably. Nowadays, trade is increasingly conducted on digital platforms, automated systems and via paperless transactional tools. Our legislation needs to evolve in order to represent this truth and facilitate further adoption of digital technologies. This Bill aims at updating the Electronic Transaction Act to better align with advancement in digital commerce and to ensure that the country's legal framework is in line with international standards. Particularly those established by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The amendments are largely informed by the following instruments, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir – • Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996 (MLEC); • Model Law on Electronic Signatures 2001 (MLES); • United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts 2005 (ECC), and • Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records 2017 (MLETR). By adhering to these instruments, Mauritius strengthens legal certainty and improves its capacity to engage comprehensively in cross-border digital trade. It is also crucial to emphasise that these modifications will enable our posture to become a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, as we said, known as the ECC. Furthermore, Mauritius can join this international agreement which makes it practicable for electronic communications to be legally recognised in cross-border contracts by also harmonising our local laws with the convention's tenets. There are currently about 25 contracting states, including Singapore, that are signatories to the ECC, indicating a growing global acceptance. Although the number of contracting states is still growing, it comprises both developed and emerging economies. As nations update their frameworks for digital trade, adoption is continuously rising. Enhanced legal certainty in international transactions, better acceptance of our electronic communications overseas, and increased appeal of Mauritius as a jurisdiction for international trade and digital business are only a few of the obvious advantages of this accession. The Bill is technical because the subject matter is technical, but its objective is simple: to facilitate business and provide legal certainty. It updates core provisions of the law to reflect how transactions are actually conducted today. Digitally, across borders and increasingly through automated systems. Far from over-legislating, it removes ambiguity and aligns Mauritius with internationally accepted standards. These reforms also represent an important milestone in the implementation of the Government's ICT Blueprint (2025-2029). That strategy sets out a clear vision for Mauritius to become a digitally empowered economy, underpinned by robust legal and regulatory frameworks. By modernising the Electronic Transaction Act, we are giving concrete effect to that vision, creating the legal infrastructure necessary to support digital trade, foster innovation and enhance trust in electronic transactions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this reform is not happening in isolation. It is linked by the roots with the Blueprint (2025-2029) and aims at positioning Mauritius as a digitally empowered economy. We are not just updating a law. We are building the legal infrastructure for innovation, digital trade and economic growth. The Bill introduces three main areas of reform – (i) It modernises the law on electronic signatures; (ii) It provides legal recognition for automated contracting and smart contracts; (iii) It introduces a comprehensive framework for electronic transferable records. This third section is the most transformative part of the Bill, which I will come to as we build the foundation, and I will briefly address each of these. Firstly, strengthening the objects of the Act under section 3. The Bill updates the objectives of the Act to clearly include the support of cross-border electronic transactions and deepens the integration of Mauritius into the digital global economy. This addition is not just symbolic. It shows a clear policy direction to ensure that Mauritius stays compatible with international electronic systems and remains, therefore, attractive for global business. Secondly, modernising the key definitions under section 2. The Bill revises the language of the Act to match current technological realities. It replaces the term 'electronic agent' with 'automated messaging system', defined as a system that can start or respond to electronic communications without human involvement. This aligns the Electronic Transactions Act with the language in the ECC and reflects modern practices. The term 'automated message system' is internationally recognised and better reflects modern technologies, including platforms and algorithm-driven systems. It ensures clarity and alignment with global legal frameworks, particularly in recognising contracts formed without human intervention. The definition of 'electronic record' now includes all information logically linked to the record, ensuring consistency with international standards. A new definition is added to support the legal framework for transferable instruments in electronic form. Thirdly, reform of electronic signatures, section 8 – and this one is a replacement. A central feature of this Bill is the amendment to section 8 on electronic signatures. The new provision sets out a clear and modern test. An electronic signature will meet a legal requirement if it identifies the signatory and shows intention, and the method used is reliable and appropriate for its purpose or has proven to achieve that purpose. This introduces for the first time in our laws a flexible and technology neutral standard based on reliability. This approach has several benefits, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. It accommodates various technologies, it reflects how electronic signatures are commonly used, and it ensures legal validity is assessed in the right context. This amendment aligns with Article 6 of the Model Law on Electronic Signatures and Article 9 of the ECC. It also introduces flexibility while maintaining legal clarity, and it ensures technology neutrality. This approach is widely adopted internationally and ensures legal certainty while also being technology-agnostic. It allows courts to assess the signature in context rather than relying on rigid or outdated criteria. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to exemplify with a concrete case. Consider a Mauritian company entering into a high-value supply contract with an overseas partner. Instead of simply signing a document electronically, the parties now use a secure digital signing platform which requires a multi-factor authentication to verify the identity of the signatory, uses encryption and digital certificates to link the signature uniquely to that person, and generates a tamper evident record so that any alteration to the document, after signature, becomes detectable to prevent frauds and it produces a time-stamped audit trail showing when and by whom the document was signed so that tracing can be enabled in case of any investigation of wrongdoings. Now, under the amendment, under Section 8, the law does not simply ask, ‘was there a signature?’ but it asks, ‘is the method used reliable and appropriate for that purpose?’. In a high-value commercial contract, a system with authentication, encryption and audit trails would clearly meet that standard. In other words, the law now recognises not just that a document is signed, but it is signed in a way that can be trusted. With regard to recognition of foreign electronic signature – and this is a new section under 15A – a new section states that the legal effectiveness of an electronic signature or certificate cannot be denied merely based on the geographic location where it was created or used, or merely on the basis of the location of the issuer's or signatory's business. This rule promotes cross-border acceptance and removes legal obstacles to international electronic transactions. It simply ensures that geography does not determine validity. A foreign signature must still meet the same functional and reliability requirements under Mauritian law. This is essential for cross-border trade and ensures that Mauritius is not isolated from international digital transactions. While the existing Act already recognises secure electronic signatures, the new provision removes any doubt by expressly providing that a signature or certificate cannot be denied legal effect solely because it originates from abroad. Therefore, this strengthens legal certainty and aligns Mauritius with international best practice. In fact, this is a non-discrimination rule, which is stronger in legal interpretation. With regard to trust and digital signature framework under Section 16, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in any digital ecosystem, the circle of trust represents a fundamental element that builds credibility. This Bill contributes to strengthen the trust in the use of digital signatures in our jurisdiction. It clarifies that any alteration to an electronic signature after it was made, must be detectable. This may appear technical, but it is essential to ensure integrity, transparency and confidence in digital transactions. And another keyword, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is traceability. Electronic records and digital signatures under Section 18 and 19 contain amendments that clarify that a digital signature applies to the entire electronic record and not just to part of it or only to the pages on which that signature was affixed and that there is consistency in how secure digital signatures are treated. These changes eliminate confusion and reflect current verification practices internationally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. With regard to clarifying electronic communications under Section 15, this Bill introduces important updates to the rules governing electronic communications. Section 14 is updated to align with the ECC by redefining the time of dispatch as the time at which a message leaves the originator's system, and clarifying that receipt occurs when a message can be retrieved. Additional provisions clarify that the location of equipment does not determine the place of business, and in a world that is dominated by cloud technologies, this section becomes very important. It also clarifies that domain names or email addresses do not specify or imply a specific location. This Bill further clarifies that the location of servers or equipment do not define a party's place of business and using a domain name or email address linked to a country, does not imply a presumption of location. These provisions are crucial in a digital environment where infrastructure is often spread across multiple geographical areas. The concept of cloud computing, as mentioned, is one such example. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a common practical application of this clause can be described by the following situation. An exporter sends shipping instructions or confirms contract by email or through an online platform. The law will now clearly determine when, that is the time stamp, that communication takes legal effect, thereby removing disputes about whether or not and when a message was sent and/or received with the time stamps. It also ensures that server location does not determine the place of business and domain names do not create presumptions of jurisdiction. These updates reflect the realities of modern digital infrastructures and practices. With regard to legal recognition of automated contracting under new Sections 14A to 14D, an important innovation in this Bill is the introduction of rules about automated messaging systems. These new sections clarify that online proposals are generally invitations to make offers unless otherwise stated. Contracts formed through automated systems are legally valid even without human intervention and there are safeguards for input errors allowing for withdrawal under certain circumstances or conditions. These rules provide a solid legal foundation for smart contracts, algorithm driven transactions and digital platforms. Such contracts are already widely used in practice. The law is simply recognising reality and providing legal certainty. Importantly, the Bill does not remove safeguards. General contract law continues to apply and specific protections are introduced including provision for input errors. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a logical question that arises relates to protection for individuals dealing with automated systems. The Bill introduces a clear safeguard. Where a person makes an input error and the system does not provide an opportunity to correct it, the person may withdraw the erroneous part of the communication under two conditions; notice is given promptly and no benefit has been derived. This ensures fairness in automated environments. It is a balanced approach that supports innovation and at the same time, protects users adequately and it reflects everyday commercial reality. When a buyer places an order on an online platform and the system automatically confirms the purchase, the system generates an invoice and processes payment and a contract is then formed. This Bill ensures that such transactions are legally recognised while also protecting users in cases of input errors where no correction mechanism is provided for. Consider another situation, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in which a Mauritian seller provides products to a foreign purchaser through a blockchain-enabled system. A smart contract is created with predefined terms. For example, once the shipment is confirmed as delivered and verified, payment is automatically processed and released to the exporter. In this arrangement, there is no need for manual intervention once the conditions are met and satisfied. The system automatically executes the contract and all actions are recorded transparently on the blockchain network. In practical terms, this means faster settlement of payments, reduced reliance on intermediaries, and greater trust between parties who may be from different jurisdictions. There is a clarification, however, I need to bring at this stage, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. This Bill is not a substitute for customer or consumer protection legislations or cross-border enforcement mechanisms. Its role is to provide legal certainty, evidentiary recognition, and trusted rules for digital transactions. These elements are essential foundations for protecting users in the digital economy. No electronic transaction law anywhere in the world can guarantee that a foreign seller will deliver goods ultimately. What similar laws do provide for is the legal framework necessary to establish enforceable digital rights, reliable evidence, and trusted electronic transactions. Without these amendments, Mauritian users would face even greater uncertainty when transacting internationally online because the legal validity of electronic records, signatures, and automated transactions would be less clear. Further legislations can now be built by the relevant Ministries, relying upon this Bill for protecting online customers and merchants. With regard to the introduction of electronic transferable records, which pertain to the New Part II, Sections 8B and 8L, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, increasing reliance on modern trade, on digital documentation, makes it imperative to introduce a new framework for electronic transferable records. Without this framework, electronic trade documents cannot function effectively, and Mauritius risks being excluded from paperless trade systems. This Bill enables key commercial instruments like negotiable instruments and documents of title to exist and to operate fully in electronic form with legal certainty. The framework is based on three main principles – • Firstly, the legal recognition. Electronic transferable records cannot be denied validity just because they are in an electronic form. • Secondly, functional equivalence. An electronic record will meet legal requirements if it contains the necessary information and a reliable method ensures its integrity, identification, and control. The operationalisation of the above two principles ensures that electronic transferable records do not increase the risk of fraud. In fact, it reduces the risk as the operational framework mandates – (i) a reliable method to ensure integrity; (ii) exclusive control equivalent to possession, and (iii) secure systems preventing unauthorised access. Digital systems also provide audit trails that are often stronger than paper-based processes. An important feature of this Bill is control equivalent to possession. The Bill also introduces the idea of control as the electronic equivalent of possession, allowing these instruments to be transferred securely in digital form. Therefore, this approach begs the question as to whether replacing possession with control is legally sound or not. In fact, the answer, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is yes. This is a well-established principle under the UNCITRAL model. The term control performs the same legal function as possession in a digital environment. It ensures that only one person can exercise rights over the record at a time, and transfers can be effected securely and verifiably. In addition to establishing the legal recognition of electronic transferable records, the Bill also sets out clear operational rules to ensure that these instruments can function effectively in practice. First, the Bill addresses endorsement and amendment. In traditional paper-based systems, documents such as bills of lading or promissory notes may be endorsed, meaning rights are transferred by signing or amended where necessary. The Bill ensures that these same actions can be carried out electronically, using reliable methods that preserve the integrity of record. For example, an electronic bill of lading can be endorsed digitally to transfer rights from an exporter to a bank or buyer without the need for physical handling. Second, the Bill provides clarity on transfer and control. In the physical world, possession of a document often determines who has rights over it. In the electronic environment, the concept of control replaces the concept of possession as explained above, and this implies that only one party at a time can exercise rights over the electronic record, and the system must ensure that control can be transferred securely from one party to another. For instance, when an electronic bill of lading is transferred, the system ensures that the previous holder does not have control anymore, thereby preventing duplication or competing claims. The Bill finally deals with conversion between paper and electronic formats. Recognising that both systems may coexist during a transition period, the law allows for documents to be converted from paper to electronic form and from electronic form back to paper, provided that a reliable method is used to maintain integrity, and ensure that only one valid version exists at any given point in time. This avoids situations where both a paper and an electronic version circulate simultaneously, which would create legal uncertainty. The Bill also provides for cross-border recognition. Electronic transferable records will not be denied legal effect simply because they are used in another jurisdiction. This is essential for international trade. Referring to the earlier example of electronic bill of lading issued abroad, it can now be both recognisable and enforceable in Mauritius, and vice versa, facilitating seamless cross-border transactions. This framework aligns with the UNCITRAL model on electronic transferable records and marks a major step towards paperless trade. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, taken together, these provisions ensure that electronic transferable records are not only legally recognised, but are also operationally viable, secure, and fully functional within both domestic and international trade systems. In the current law, when goods are exported, a bill of lading is issued to serve as a proof of shipment. Evidence of the contract of carriage and a document of title to the goods are also issued. However, in many cases, this document must be physically couriered across jurisdictions before the buyer can take delivery of goods. This creates delays and is more expensive. With this new section, the same bill of lading can now exist solely in electronic format and be transferred digitally from one party to another with full legal recognition. This implies – • no waiting for courier services; • reduced risk of loss or delay, and • faster release of goods at destination. For perishable exports, this can make a critical difference. The House may note that the Finance Act 2025, at Section 4, amended the Bills of Exchange Act, enabling legal recognition of electronic bills of exchange, an instrument that deals with the movement of funds only. The current Bill extends electronic recognition to a whole new category of instruments, such as bill of lading and promissory notes. This Bill establishes a general, cross-cutting legal framework that applies across all electronic transferable records. While the Bill of Exchange Act modernises a specific instrument, this Bill ensures that the same principles apply consistently across the entire digital trade ecosystem. It is standardisation across the system. This reform ensures coherence, consistency, and future readiness. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is not about introducing complexity. It is about removing uncertainty. It ensures that our laws reflect modern commercial realities, supports innovation and positions Mauritius as a credible participant in the global digital economy. Additionally, this Bill facilitates businesses to conduct online transactions by reducing friction and by increasing certainty instead. Businesses will benefit from clearer rules on electronic signatures, recognition of automated transactions, and the ability to use electronic trade documents. This will lower costs, speed up transactions and improve competitiveness. This Bill is a forward-looking reform that balances innovation with legal clarity. It updates our legal framework, supports digital and cross-border transactions, backs emerging technologies like smart contracts and paves the way for paperless trade. Mauritius has already made significant progress in digital government services, electronic registration systems and legal recognition of documents. We are, in fact, following the track of states like Singapore, United Kingdom, France and Abu Dhabi, among others. This Bill positions Mauritius as a jurisdiction ready to compete in the digital economy while following international best practices. It sends a clear message that Mauritius is ready to operate confidently and securely in the global space. It is worthy of note that Mauritius will be the first country on the African continent to apply model law on electronic transferable records across to give legal recognition and enforceability to different types of instruments for digital trade. This Bill also prepares Mauritius to take benefit from the digital trade protocol of the African Continental Free Trade Area by recognising electronic documents of member states once they legislate the recognition on electronic transferable records. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are paving the way on the continent. Thank you.

Thank you, hon. Minister. I suspend the Sitting for half an hour. At 4.48 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.29 p.m., with Madam Speaker in the Chair.