Second Reading THE ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. V OF 2026) (5.33 p.m.)

Merci beaucoup. Madame la présidente, permettez-moi de commencer mon discours avec une anecdote. Le cas d'une amie qui, pas plus tard que février, me racontait comment pour le besoin d'une signature sur un document pour son business, elle a dû payer le voyage de son frère du Canada vers Rodrigues. Et elle a dû le faire car la signature devait se faire en personne. Une signature donc qui coûterait moins avec l'avènement de ce projet de loi. Madame la présidente, mon discours ne sera peut-être pas technique, mais elle sera plus sur l'impact et l'implication de cette loi sur nos citoyens, surtout pour nous à Rodrigues. Madame la présidente, moi d'abord saluer la volonté du ministre des Technologies de la communication et de l'innovation d'emmener Maurice, ainsi que Rodrigues, aux réalités d'une économie numérique moderne. Il s'agit de reconnaître que les affaires, la communication, le commerce et les services publics ne fonctionnent plus uniquement à travers les documents papier, des signatures manuscrites et des transactions en présentiel. De plus en plus, il repose sur des plateformes numériques, des systèmes automatisés et des échanges électroniques transfrontaliers. Ce projet de loi vise à garantir que notre législation évolue en conséquence. Pour Rodrigues, ce débat n'a rien d'abstrait. La connectivité numérique n'est pas simplement une question de commodité pour mon île. C'est une question d'inclusion économique et d'égalité des chances. En raison de notre éloignement géographique, les entrepreneurs rodriguais, les étudiants, les professionnels et les petites entreprises font souvent face à des coûts plus élevés, à des délais plus longs et à des charges administratives plus lourdes que ceux de l'île Maurice. Lorsque les documents doivent être transportés physiquement, lorsque les signatures nécessitent un traitement en personne ou lorsque les transactions commerciales dépendent de systèmes papier, Rodrigues supporte ce fardeau de manière plus conséquente. Dans ce sens, un cadre moderne pour les transactions électroniques peut devenir un outil de décentralisation et d'autonomisation. La reconnaissance des signatures électroniques fiables peut réduire les délais pour les entreprises et les citoyens qui doivent actuellement se déplacer ou envoyer inutilement des documents par courrier. La reconnaissance juridique des transactions numériques automatisées peut soutenir les plateformes de commerce électronique, les services en ligne et les technologies financières, permettant aux entrepreneurs rodriguais d'atteindre des clients au-delà de nos frontières. La reconnaissance des documents électroniques transférables pourrait faciliter le commerce sans papier, ainsi que les systèmes logistiques et maritimes qui deviennent progressivement la norme internationale. Madame la présidente, l'économie mondiale évolue rapidement. Le commerce international s'oriente vers la documentation numérique, le financement commercial électronique et les systèmes contractuels automatisés. Si Maurice souhaite demeurer compétitive en tant que juridiction internationale pour les affaires et le commerce, notre cadre juridique doit suivre ces évolutions. À cet égard, ce projet de loi est à la fois bienvenu et nécessaire. Je note particulièrement les efforts déployés dans ce texte pour adopter une approche neutre sur le plan technologique. Plutôt que de lier la loi à une plateforme ou une technologie spécifique, le projet met l'accent sur la fiabilité, l'intégrité et la fonctionnalité. Cela est important car la technologie évolue plus rapidement que la législation. Une loi rigide devient très vite obsolète. Je salue également les dispositions reconnaissant les signatures électroniques étrangères et les documents électroniques transférables transfrontaliers. Dans une économie mondialisée, les systèmes numériques ne peuvent s'arrêter aux frontières nationales. Cependant, Madame la présidente, le soutien à la modernisation doit aussi s'accompagner de vigilance et de responsabilité. En numérisant les systèmes commerciaux et en reconnaissant juridiquement les documents électroniques transférables, nous augmentons également notre exposition aux cybermenaces, à la fraude, au vol d'identité et aux vulnérabilités des systèmes. La question n'est pas donc seulement de savoir si les systèmes électroniques doivent être reconnus, mais aussi si nos institutions sont suffisamment préparées pour les sécuriser. Nos entreprises, en particulier les petites et moyennes entreprises, disposent-elles des capacités techniques nécessaires ? Nos citoyens comprennent-ils les implications du consentement électronique et des contrats automatisés ? Investissons-nous suffisamment dans les infrastructures de cybersécurité, dans la culture numérique et dans la protection des consommateurs en ligne ? Ce sont là des questions essentielles. Madame la présidente, Rodrigues en particulier ne doit pas être laissée pour compte dans cette transition numérique. Le succès de loi comme celle-ci dépend non seulement de la réforme juridique, mais aussi des infrastructures et de l'accessibilité. Une connexion internet fiable, des services publics numériques, une sensibilisation à la cybersécurité, des outils technologiques abordables doivent atteindre chaque partie de la République. Sinon, nous risquons de créer une fracture numérique où certains bénéficieront pleinement de l'économie numérique, tandis que d'autres resteront exclus. Et Rodrigues n'a pas besoin qu'on allonge encore plus la liste des choses dont on est exclu. J'encourage donc le gouvernement, parallèlement à cette réforme législative, à continuer d'investir dans les infrastructures numériques à Rodrigues, dans la préparation en matière de cybersécurité et dans l'éducation du public sur la transaction électronique des droits numériques. Ce projet de loi reflète une transformation plus large qui s'opère dans le monde entier. La transition d'économie fondée sur le papier vers des économies connectées numériquement. Maurice ne peut pas s'isoler de cette transformation mais nous ne devons pas non plus adopter la numérisation aveuglément. Nous devons promouvoir l'innovation tout en protégeant la sécurité, l'accessibilité et l'équité. Pour Rodrigues, l'économie numérique représente à la fois, une opportunité et un défi. Si elle est bien gérée, elle peut réduire l'isolement, élargir les marchés et créer de nouvelles opportunités pour notre jeunesse et nos entrepreneurs. Mais si elle est mal gérée, elle peut aggraver les inégalités et exposer les utilisateurs vulnérables à des nouveaux risques. Il est donc de notre responsabilité en tant que législateur de veiller à ce que le progrès technologique reste centré sur nos citoyens. Madame la présidente, avec ces observations et tout en encourageant une attention continue à la cybersécurité, à l'accessibilité et à l'inclusion numérique, je soutiens les objectifs de ce projet de loi ainsi que la modernisation qu'il cherche à réaliser pour la République de Maurice. Merci.

Je vous remercie. Hon. Baboolall. (5.42 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to intervene on this Bill. Let me state from the outset that Front Militan Progresis, (FMP) is not against modernising our Electronic Transaction Framework. We accept that the Electronic Transaction Act 2000, now 26 years old, needs to be brought into line with international developments, including the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on electronic transferable records, the ETR, and the United Nations Convention on the use of electronic communications in international contract. Madam Speaker, what we will not accept is a Bill that transplants the legal text of advanced jurisdictions without transplanting the institutional infrastructure and practical safeguards that make those provisions actually work. What this House is being asked to approve is a legislative facade, the front of a building with nothing behind it. I will demonstrate this, Madam Speaker, not by reference to the opposition standards, but by reference to the Government's own Digital Transformation Blueprint 2025-2029, published last year, signed by the President and the hon. Prime Minister, and issued by the very Minister who presents this Bill today. Let us look at the Singapore's homework; the borrowed text but missing architecture. Madam Speaker, this Bill is modelled almost clause for clause on Singapore's Electronic Transaction Amendment Act 2021. The new part 2(a) on Electronics Transferable Records mirrors Singapore's part 2(a). The definition of automated message system in Clause 3 is virtually identical. Section 14 (a) to 14 (d) replicates Singapore's contract formation provision. The revised section 8 adopts the same reliability-based standard. There is nothing wrong with drawing on international models but when Singapore passed its 2021 amendment, it did not pass legislation into a vacuum. It passed legislation into a mature ecosystem. Let me describe what Singapore built and what Mauritius lacks. Madam Speaker, in Singapore, the controller function is exercised by the Infocom Media Development Authority (IMDA) a well-resourced body with dedicated PKI oversight. In Mauritius, it sits within ICTA, as one mandate among many, and the Controller of Certification Authority, CCA website was last updated in September 2022. Singapore has two accredited Private Certificate Authority, plus GovTech as a public CA approved in October 2024. Mauritius has eMudhra operating through post office and Mausign oriented towards e- procurement. In Singapore, every citizen with Singpass can produce a legally recognised secure electronic signature from their smartphone. In Mauritius, you must physically attend a post office. Madam Speaker, when Singapore enacted its ETR provision, it backed them with trade trust, a government-developed open source blockchain framework. In 2023, Singapore executed the world's first live cross-border electronic bill of lading. In February 2026, IMDA launched a funded trade trust readiness program. Four trade trust platforms have P&I club approval, giving electronic trade documents the same insurance status as paper. What does Mauritius have? Section 8 (b) to 8 (l) – legal text, no platform, no accreditation regime for ETR management systems. No cross-border arrangements and no funded adoption program. Madam Speaker, Singapore amended its Evidence Act to create specific presumptions for electronic records in court. Mauritius still operates under the Courts Act 1945 with general principles from the Civil Code. There is no certification mechanism for electronic record keeping system. Every case is proved from scratch. Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister has given us the front page of Singapore's homework, but not the working that supports it. Let us look at our PKI infrastructure and controller. Madam Speaker, the entire framework, electronic signatures, secure records, electronic transferable records, depend on a functioning public key infrastructure. A PKI is the trust system that allows parties who have never met to verify each other's identity. At its apex sits the root certificate authority. In Mauritius, the CCA within ICTA, below it sits the issuing CAs, eMudhra and Mausign. Below them sits the entities, citizens, business and government agencies. Madam Speaker, Mauritius does have a PKI. The bones are there but it serves one narrow-use case, primarily government e-procurement and has not been scaled to the broader economy. There is no trusted time stamping authority, essential for disputes about the timing of electronic transferable records. There are no attributes, certificates, binding rules and authorities to identities, essential for confirming who may endorse or surrender an electronic bill of lading. Madam Speaker, there is no sector specific deployment into banking, trade finance or the legal profession. The mobile ID enables digital signing, but the MNIS Certificate Authority on the identity card is not even licensed under the ETA. The infrastructure exists in separate silos. The infrastructure exists in separate silos. Madam Speaker, the ETA 2000 envisaged a rich institutional ecosystem. A well-resourced controller, multiple competing license CAs, accessible registration authorities, formal cross-border recognition, and domain-specific public sector CAs under Section 19 (b) (iii). 26 years later, the CCA sits at the function among many within ICTA, competing for attention against spectrum actions and broadcasting regulation. No public sector agency apart from Mausign has been approved as a CA. No comprehensive cross-border recognition regime exists. The Government has not fully stood up the institution required by the existing Act and now proposes to expand its scope dramatically. This is building the second floor while the first floor remains incomplete. Madam Speaker, let us look at the Government's blueprint to prove our point. Madam Speaker, the most compelling evidence that this Bill is premature comes from the Government itself. The Digital Transformation Blueprint 2025-2029 is structured around four pillars and five enablers. The blueprint recognises that legal reform, enabler two, is the only one of the five enablers needed. The other four are digital public infrastructure, institutional coordination, cybersecurity and trust, and data governance. All five must work together. Let me examine what the blueprint promises and what this Bill delivers. Enabler 1, Madam Speaker, acknowledges that there are fundamental blocks that are either inadequately engineered or missing in the current info structure, or still are deprived of the required interoperability. It promises a national identity management framework extended to banks, insurers and telecom operators, and that the digital signatures will allow citizens to digitally sign documents. The Government's own blueprint acknowledges the need for this integration. This Bill does nothing to deliver it. Enabler 2, Madam Speaker, identifies a comprehensive legal program well beyond the ETA. GDPR aligned data protection. A Freedom of Information Act, cybersecurity law revision, ICT Act amendments. The ETA amendment is one piece of a much larger program being rushed into this House while the rest remain on the drawing board. Enabler 3, Madam Speaker, is the most revealing. Madam Speaker, it proposes a National Digital Transformation Bureau modelled on Singapore's GovTech, a National Cyber Resilience and Cybersecurity Agency. A Data Management Office and – listen carefully –, a new entity for digital identity management, including ID card, mobile ID, digital service authentication and trust services of digital signature. The blueprint states that identity management services will be recognised by this entity, thus providing legal sanctity to electronic identity management services. These are the very institutions needed to make this Bill work. Not one of them exists. Not one is created by this Bill. Enabler 4, Madam Speaker, commits that the Government’s certification authority will be upgraded to offer secure e-signature, time stamping and workflow-based approvals for all sectors, including banking, legal, insurance and e-commerce. A direct acknowledgement that the current infrastructure is inadequate. But this is a policy commitment in the blueprint, not a provision in the Bill. Madam Speaker, I am not holding the Government to the Opposition’s standards. I am holding it to its own. The Government's own blueprint identifies five enablers that must work together. This Bill delivers part of one. Four out of five remain in the drawer. Madam Speaker, what are the specific concerns with the Bill? Madam Speaker, beyond the infrastructure deficit, three specific concerns merit this House's attention. Madam Speaker, on the electronic transferable records, the Bill's Section 8E contains only a general reliability standard. Unlike Singapore's section 160 (2), there is no presumption of reliability for accredited ETR management system because there is no accredited regime. Singapore’s section 16Q to 16S establish comprehensive regulatory powers for ETR providers. Our Bill is silent. Madam Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister when a Mauritian exporter attempts to issue an electronic bill of lading under this new framework, which platform will they use? Who will accredit it? What presumption will attach to it in court? What insurance status will it carry? The Bill provides no answers. The blueprint provides no answers. The Government's own strategy document does not mention trade trust, does not mention ETR management system accreditation, and does not mention cross-border ETR interoperability arrangements. This is not an oversight, Madam Speaker. It is an absence that renders ETR provision aspirational rather than operational. Madam Speaker, on automated contracts, Sections 14A to 14D give legal recognition to contracts formed without human review. Section 14D on contract terms’ transparency is an innovation not found in Singapore's ETA. Credit where due, but it is a disclosure obligation without teeth. What are the consequences of non-compliance? The Bill does not say. A mandatory cooling-off period for high-value automated contract would have been a meaningful consumer safeguard. Madam Speaker, our elderly, our pensioners, our less digitally literate citizens are already vulnerable to mobile banking fraud. This Bill gives automated systems the legal capacity to bind citizens to contract without human review while providing no consumer protection infrastructure beyond a reactive error correction right and a toothless disclosure obligation. Madam Speaker, on electronic signatures, the shift to a reliability-based standard in the new Section 8 is sound in principle. The addition of alteration detectability in Section 16 (e) goes further than Singapore and aligns with IDAS. Again, credit where due, but placing the burden of assessing reliability on our courts without an accreditation framework or widespread digital signing infrastructure will produce uncertainty and inconsistent outcome. Precisely the opposite of business facilitation. Let me give another example, Madam Speaker. If an automated contract is triggered by a server in Europe, executed in an Asian cloud network, and drains an asset right here, in Port Louis, which court has jurisdiction? The Bill is dead silent. What do we do? Mauritius, the Republic needs a Digital Economy Act, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the ICT Act 2001 was written for a different era. It has been amended in 2009, 2011, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2024. Each time bolting new functions onto a framework not designed for them. The digital economy needs new legislative foundation. Madam Speaker, we call on the Government to bring forward a comprehensive digital economy Act establishing – • a dedicated digital economy authority; • a statutory controller with defined qualification and operational independence; • an accreditation regime for ETR management system; • mandatory integration of the mobile ID with the ETA secure signature framework; • evidentiary presumptions for electronic records, • consumer protection for automated contracting, and • the legal basis for cross-border digital trade. The Government's own Blueprint proposes most of this institutional reform. What is missing is the legislative vehicle to deliver them. We propose, Madam Speaker, pending the comprehensive reform, six measures for this Bill – (i) a mandatory implementation roadmap within 12 months of the commencement covering the control function, the CA regime, mobile ID integration and the ETR management platform; (ii) an accreditation regime for the ETR management system with presumptions of reliability, modelled on Singapore's Section 16Q to 16S; (iii) engagement with the open-source TradeTrust framework for immediate cross- border interoperability; (iv) evidentiary reforms establishing presumptions for electronic records and a certification mechanism for record keeping systems; (v) phased commencement of the ETR provisions, operative only once supporting infrastructure is in place; (vi) a commitment on the record of this House to a comprehensive ICT Act review and the development of a digital economy Act within a defined time frame. Madam Speaker, a digital economy cannot be built on legislative text alone. Singapore understood this. The UK understood this. The EU understood this. The Government's own blueprint understands this. It identifies five enablers that must work together. Madam Speaker, this Bill delivers part of one enabler. The institutions the Blueprint promises do not exist. The technology platforms that the Bill presupposes do not exist. The PKI infrastructure serves primarily e-procurement and has not been scaled. The evidentiary framework has not been reformed. Madam Speaker, we do not oppose this Bill in principle. We oppose the recklessness of enacting it without the supporting infrastructure. The citizens of Mauritius deserve better than a legislative facade. They deserve a digital economy built on solid foundations, not one that copies the text of advanced jurisdiction while leaving our people, our businesses, and our court without the infrastructure to make it work. Madam Speaker, a digital economy cannot be built on hype and legal ambiguity. We cannot sacrifice security at the altar of speed. The Government owes this House and this Republic, not just a Bill, but a plan. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Hon. Narsinghen! (6.06 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr H. Narsinghen): Thank you, Madam Speaker. For so many years, the predecessor of our hon. Minister Ramtohul has been sleeping. No amendment, no change. Hon. Baboolall has also accepted that it is high time to come with amendments. Before coming to my main arguments, I have listened carefully to hon. Baboolall. He is mentioning that the Ministry and the hon. Minister has been following the model of Singapore. I beg to disagree. To a certain extent, yes, because when you see what Singapore has done, you will understand that Singapore and US, when it comes to electronic transactions, electronic commerce, are big risk takers. And I am sure that the hon. Minister, in an ideal world, hopefully one day, will have people like the actual hon. Minister of IT unlike the laptop éclaté. He is an expert. He was working for one of the biggest IT companies and also, he has a legal background. So, certainly, we did not blindly copy Singapore. Why? He has produced what is known as a synthetic model, taking, looking at what the EU has been doing, what Singapore has been doing, what other countries, Hong Kong has been doing. This is what he has done. There is nothing wrong to seek inspiration from all these countries which are model countries. At the same time, what I cannot understand from hon. Baboolall, he wants to create multiple regulatory bodies. We have already one regulatory body and for the time being, you know for sure, you know well that we are in a very difficult financial and economic situation. And he knows as a learned lawyer, that in the ICT Act, there are ample provisions and leeway for the Minister to come with regulations to beef up the institutional framework. He knows fully well also that Mauritius is not Singapore yet. We have been dreaming for so many years to become Singapore. Unfortunately, Singapore is much, much ahead of us. So, we have to take our time, and we have to take what is known as an incremental approach. If we read the Blueprint, this is exactly what the hon. Minister and his technicians, his learned advisors, I would say in that Ministry, chosen by hon. Dr. Ramtohul. At the same time, the hon. Minister explained clearly that we are not touching Consumer Protection Law. Consumer Protection Law and Contract Law, which is found in the Code Napoleon, would be the same. So, I do not know why these comments are warranted. He also mentioned that there are provisions, we have not touched the law of evidence. As a learned lawyer, he knows fully well, when you pass a legislation, the specialised legislation which is in front of us, the Bill today, would certainly prevail over other provisions. So, the specific thing prevails over the generality. This is the basic principle of interpretation; the canons of interpretation that we have in our law. These are some of the comments. So, a Bill which has been passed in 2000 with a few amendments, it is high time to recognise that the Electronic Transactions Bill of 2026 represents a significant modernisation of Mauritius legal framework, governing digital commerce, electronic signatures, automated transactions and paperless trade. The reforms, Madam Speaker, aim to align Mauritian law with modern commercial realities and also internationally recognised standards for electronic transactions as mentioned by the hon. Minister. Electronic documents shall have the same legal standing as paper ones. International trade law, Madam Speaker, is different from other branches of law. Here we must allow the best practices to develop and then, subsequently, after a number of years, the law maker can intervene to consolidate the legal architecture and this is what the Ministry of IT and the hon. Minister are doing today. And, Madam Speaker, we have to also understand the context of the actual legislation. In 2000, when the law was being passed, the existing Electronic Transactions Act was enacted at a time when digital commerce, Fintech, automated contracting systems and electronic trade documentation were far less developed and I would say still at its infancy stage. Since then, the rapid expansion of online banking, e-commerce, mobile payments, AI- assisted platforms and cross-border digital trade have exposed several practical and legal gaps within the actual framework. So, what are the loopholes and lacuna in the actual framework? The earlier legislation was enacted when digital commerce, as I mentioned, was at its infancy stage. Over time, what we have seen and what the Ministry of IT has seen is that there are a number of weaknesses which are, for example, regarding automated electronic contracting, paperless trade documentation, cross-border digital transactions, modern authentication systems, evolving Fintech structures, cyber security vulnerabilities, online fraud and also identity theft and reliability standards for electronic systems which were missing. Madam Speaker, as technology evolved, these legal gaps created uncertainty and exposed businesses and consumers to greater risk, and this is what this Bill is trying to tackle today; to have legal certainty and to remove this risk. We have seen today itself in South Africa, how South Africa, with its ripping effects in Mauritius, had to suffer from a massive cyber-attack. And we have also seen, Madam Speaker, as transactions migrate online, risks associated with digital commerce have also increased significantly and modern cyber threats include phishing attacks, hacking, identity theft as I mentioned, fraudulent electronic transfers and fake digital documentation and also manipulation of electronic records. So, these amendments therefore seek to strengthen today the trust in digital systems by reinforcing authentication mechanisms, electronic record integrity –very important. The hon. Minister also mentioned about traceability of transactions and accountability standards, legal recognition of secure systems. The reforms are intended not only to facilitate digital commerce, but to also create a safer legal environment for electronic transactions. The paradox and the difficulties of the Ministry and the hon. Minister are how to make electronic transactions quicker, easier, but also safer. This is what the Bill is trying to do. Over time Mauritius has learned from experience itself and also from abroad. This is why all these corrective measures are being taken today. And as I mentioned – not only in Mauritius but also from abroad – it is important to learn lessons from abroad. Today, the hon. Minister has spent a lot of time on very technical issues and as a Junior Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have to explain the strategy of the new Government and the vision of the hon. Prime Minister and also the vision which the former hon. Deputy Prime Minister had. Our focus today is obviously, without forgetting trade with our traditional partners, be it the US, be it Europe, be it India, China, we are focusing on Africa and this Government has a dream, how to bridge India, Africa using Mauritius as a platform. This is what purposely this Bill will do today. This is why within a span of one and a half years, the hon. Prime Minister has given great importance to Africa, travelling three times to Africa to facilitate trade and this is why my colleague, hon. Ramful and myself, we are focusing on Africa to facilitate trade. Without such a Bill, things will not happen. We cannot just brag, we cannot just talk about Africa without trying to bring the proper legal framework. The institutions will follow, as I mentioned, the ICTA is here and I am sure the hon. Minister will use the powers which he has under the law to bring the necessary regulations to cater for all the amendments which are in the pipeline. So, we are having a number of, as you know, treaties, be it COMESA, be it SADC, be it the AFCFTA, but if we do not update our legislations, if we do not beef up our legislations, nothing will happen. We are going to talk and talk, refer to Singapore, refer to South Korea, refer to all these emerging economies, but nothing will happen. This is why I have to commend the work which is being done by the hon. Minister. What are the objectives of the Bill, Madam Speaker? The amendments therefore seek to – (i) to modernise the legal recognition of electronic transactions. (ii) which is very important, to improve, and I hammer on that, legal certainty for businesses and consumers, and also (iii) very important, to strengthen the trust in digital systems and to facilitate paperless trade and digital finance. Above all, why are we doing all that? To support the ambition of Mauritius as a regional Fintech and international financial services hub. This is where the Ministry of Financial Services and the Ministry of IT and our Ministry, that is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Regional Integration and obviously Ministry of Industry and other Ministries, we have to work hand in hand, not only us, this is why regional integration is important. This is where we have to work hand in hands with our African brothers and African sisters to make things happen. The hon. Minister and his team, as I mentioned, have core challenges, what I qualify initially as a sort of regulatory paradox, that is, to make digital transaction easier, faster, while at the same time, simultaneously making them structurally more secure. That is why we cannot go too fast. This is why I mentioned initially, we have to take what is known as an incremental approach. Now, what are the improvements introduced by these amendments, Madam Speaker? Number one, as mentioned by the hon. Minister, we have technology neutral electronic signatures. You will notice that the actual legal framework adopted a narrower and more rigid approach towards electronic signatures. The present legislation was drafted during an earlier phase of digital development and relied, unfortunately, at that point in time, on prescribed forms of authentication and technological assumptions that risk becoming outdated. This created uncertainty regarding whether new forms of authentication would be legally recognised, the reliability of evolving digital signature technologies and also, the enforceability of electronically signed transactions using emerging systems. Now, what is the position under the new Bill? This time, the amendments replace the restrictive approach, which I qualify – and the Minister did also – as technology neutral, and a more what we can qualify as a reliability-based framework. The new approach, Madam Speaker, an electronic signature, will be legally valid if the method used is sufficiently reliable. This is a test of reliability for the purpose concerned. Madam Speaker, the law no longer depends on one specific technology or authentication model. The framework becomes adaptable – very important – to future technological developments. So, what is the significance of the report? The change is particularly important because technology evolves rapidly, and a rigid legal framework can quickly become obsolete. The new approach ensures that the law remains flexible and capable of accommodation. In this new Bill, there is also recognition of automated contracts, which was not there before, and this is very important. Madam Speaker, we have also seen an alignment with international standards. My learned and good friend, hon. Baboolall, mentioned that we have been following Singapore. But Singapore itself, at that point in time, when it passed its law, it followed the sort of prescription of OECD, the prescription of the World Trade Organization and so many other international organisations. We, today, are following the same best standard models. Of course, we have borrowed what is good from Singapore. We cannot blindly follow Singapore. We have been borrowing what is good from the European Union and from the US. We are certainly not like the US. We are certainly not like Singapore. So, this is what has been done. I think what is important to note is that, in law, we have to strike the right balance. We have to reckon with our realities. We are still a SIDS. We are NSVs. So, we have to reckon with our realities. I think the Minister, his Ministry and his technicians have done an excellent work, and this is why I would strongly commend this Bill to the hon. Members. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. Hon. Minister Ameer Meea! (6.23 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise, today, with conviction to support the Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill and to emphasise how this piece of legislation is important, not only for the digital economy but also, for the real economy. Our manufacturers, our SMEs, our cooperatives, our exporters, our logistics operators and all those who produce, trade and create value in Mauritius. First of all, I must say that the amendments being brought to the Bill go a long way in further enhancing the ease of doing business, reducing business costs, and above all, sending a strong signal that this Government is fully committed to making Mauritius an investor- friendly destination. But more than that, Madam Speaker, this Bill sends a clear message. Mauritius must modernise the way business is done. We cannot ask our enterprises to compete globally while keeping them dependent on paper-based processes, physical signatures, courier delays and outdated administrative habits. Madam Speaker, manufacturing remains a vital pillar of our economy, contributing around 13% to GDP and supporting thousands of direct and indirect jobs across production, logistics, distribution and services. All efforts are currently being pursued to reinvigorate industrial growth after years of weak industrial performance and insufficient growth. This is precisely why the timing of this Bill is important. We are working to rebuild our productive base. We are working on a new industry Bill. We are working on a new industry policy. We are working to support SMEs, strengthen exports, improve productivity, and make Mauritius a more serious platform for regional and international trade. The proposed amendments to the Electronic Transactions Act come at an opportune time when much emphasis is being laid on the digital transformation of the manufacturing sector to generate higher value addition and significantly increase industrial output and revenue. I must also acknowledge that compared to other developed countries, we are still lagging behind when it comes to realigning the legal and administrative framework governing day-to-day business transactions in order to reflect the digital realities of global commerce. This Bill is, therefore, timely as the key enablers will now be put in place to keep pace with technological advancements in the field of electronic transactions for a higher level of competitiveness. For a large company, delays in paperwork may be an inconvenience. For an SME, it can affect cash flow. For an exporter, it can mean missing a shipment deadline. This is why legal transformation matters. It must improve the daily life of businesses. Madam Speaker, just to respond to the Member from FPM, I would like to make a quick comparison as to what this Bill contains in relation to that of Singapore. • In terms of policy direction, in the Bill that we have, today, in the House, focused on digital economy, paperless, trade, cross-border recognition are similar objectives as in Singapore the law. • In terms of technology neutrality, in our Bill, we have reliability based on electronic signature regime. Singapore also moved from a rigid digital signature focus to technology neutral approach. • In terms of electronic signatures, a signature is valid if the method used identifies party and indicates intent, and reliability standard applies. Same functional equivalence principle in the Singapore ETA. • Automated transaction AI system. In the Bill, today, there are explicit recognitions of contracts formed by automated message systems. In Singapore ETA, there already exists contracts formed by automated systems. • Electronic transferable records – the Bill, today, introduces full framework for ETR. In Singapore, it was introduced in the Bill in 2021. • Exclusive control concept. This requires reliable method to establish exclusive control. In Singapore also, it uses controls as digital equivalent of possession. • Cross-border recognition. Foreign ETRs and signatures cannot be denied validity merely because of issuance abroad. In Singapore, it also adopts the same cross- border inter-operability principle. • Input errors in automated system. User may withdraw mistaken communication if no correction opportunity exists. This is in the Bill today. In Singapore also, in its ETA, it contains equivalent consumer commercial safeguard. Madam Speaker, I can go on with long list in terms of comparison. This amendment is highly significant because it makes Mauritius more compatible with Singapore, the UK, the United Arab Emirates and also to other digital trade jurisdictions. Madam Speaker, I will now refer to the different clauses of the Bill which in my view represent a decisive step forward for the industrial sector and for business facilitation more broadly. I particularly wish to highlight the significance of the amendments brought to clause 5 relating to electronic signatures. Indeed, the Bill introduces a more reliability-based and technologically neutral approach regarding electronic signatures. Nowadays, it is common to use several authentication methods which are far more sophisticated than the original Act that was passed in the year 2000. The legal framework must, therefore, be updated with greater flexibility so as to unintentionally constrain the benefits of innovation and as technological progress. The proposed amendments rightly move away from an overly restrictive approach towards a more diversified and recognised means of authentication for documents. This approach is commercially pragmatic and internationally aligned. For industry operators, the proposed amendments create greater operational flexibility while maintaining the necessary safeguards when it becomes to authenticity and security. By giving clearer legal recognition to electronic signatures, this Bill allows businesses to move faster, reduce administrative costs and transact with greater confidence. Madam Speaker, I will now dwell on clause 6, Part IIA of the Bill relating to Electronic Transferable Records, which I believe is probably the single most transformative position of the Bill from the perspective of industrial development. It is an undeniable fact that international trade is transitioning rapidly towards a paperless ecosystem. In this context, paper-based transactional systems are increasingly viewed as cumbersome and outdated since they often generate delays, administrative burdens and additional compliance costs. Nowadays, the trend is more towards online transactions whereby physical documents are being digitised in order to increase transactional efficiency, accelerate speed of execution and improve traceability and transparency. Madam Speaker, to illustrate my point, let us take example of a Mauritian exporter shipping goods to Europe. Today, that exporter may still need to physically handle paper bills of lading, bills of exchange, promissory notes, warehouse receipts and other trade-related documents that still depend heavily on manual handling. These paper documents can take several days and, in some cases, even longer depending on courier times, banking processes and document handling. With the proposed amendments to the Electronic Transaction Act, an important legal obstacle to paperless trade is being addressed. The legal foundation is now being created for such documents to be issued, transferred and verified electronically where the relevant systems, institutions and trading partners are ready to accept them. This is a major step forward for our exporters and manufacturers. This is not an abstract legal form. It has a direct impact on trade. If a textile exporter has a shipment ready, if an agro-processing SME is sending goods to a regional market, if a recycling manufacturing is importing inputs and exporting finished products, every day lost in paperwork affects competitiveness. In international trade, speed matters, reliability matters, traceability matters. The buyer does not wait for our administrative system to catch up. The buyer simply moves to another supplier. This Bill therefore helps Mauritius move closer to paperless trade. It supports exporters, it supports SMEs, it supports our ambition to position Mauritius as a serious production and export platform between Africa, Asia and the rest of the world. Madam Speaker, I also wish to highlight that Section 8D under clause 6 addresses a critical issue of control and possession. Indeed, the Bill provides that where an enactment requires possession of a transferable document, this requirement shall be satisfied through a reliable method establishing exclusive control over an electronic transferable record. This legal bedrock is fundamentally important because it gives confidence to manufacturers, to exporters and industry operators that electronic documents will carry the same commercial and legal weight as their paper equivalents. This is essential, Madam Speaker. Businesses will not adopt digital trade document if banks, insurers, buyers, custom brokers and logistic operators are uncertain about their validity. Legal certainty is the foundation of business confidence. Without it, digitalisation remains a slogan. Without it, digitalisation becomes a working tool for trade. Madam Speaker, for an island economy such as Mauritius, heavily dependent on international trade, it is crucial that we move swiftly towards the new norms of digital transactions if we are to remain competitive and maintain our market shares. I am confident that this course of action is imperative to engage our manufacturers, exporters, freight forwarders and logistic operators in the required direction so that they may respond more effectively to ever-changing requirements of global business. This is also relevant to our regional value chain ambition. If Mauritius wants to help structure regional production costs across Africa, we must be able to move documents, contracts, trade instrument quickly and securely. A regional value chain cannot function properly if each link is slowed down by paper, physical signatures and manual verifications. Modern industry needs modern transactions. Madam Speaker, I shall now focus on section 14B under clause 8, which relates to contract management, means of electronic communication. This aspect of the law is particularly critical because industry operators have very often approached me regarding the difficulties encountered in formally engaging in such processes, especially due to the lack of awareness and legal clarity surrounding these practices. Across the manufacturing sector, many enterprises are already using automated procurement systems, digitised purchase order platforms and electronic vendor management tools to reduce operational costs and improve efficiency. I have reviewed feedback from several industry operators indicating that there exists a legal vacuum when it comes to procurement contracts concluded through electronic systems, especially where there is no physical review transaction. This has been a significant impediment. Madam Speaker, this issue is now being addressed under Section 14B of clause 8, which provides that contract formed or performed through automated systems will not be denied validity or enforceability solely because no natural person reviewed or intervened in each individual action carried out by the automated system. This is not merely a small technical amendment. It gives a clear indication of the extent to which government is willing to go in encouraging industry operators and potential investors to confidently embrace digitalisation and modern contract management systems. From the perspective of industrial development, whose advancement falls under my responsibility, I view this as a practical legal enabler for industry 4.0 in Mauritius, which my Ministry is actively promoting within the manufacturing sector. Indeed, up to now, there has been some reluctance amongst businesses to fully automate procurement and order management processes in the absence of a sufficiently clear legal framework. This grey area is now being brightened through the provision of this Bill and industrial operators will feel more comforted in this digitalisation drive by increasingly adopting enterprise resource planning systems and other digital solutions that will now enjoy clear legal recognition. For example, a manufacturer using an Enterprise Resource Planning, commonly known as an ERP system, may automatically generate a purchase order when raw material stock reaches a minimum level. The supplier may confirm the order electronically. The production team, finance team and warehouse team can then work from the same information in real time. These are not future scenarios. These are already part of modern business. The law must not stand behind the economy; the law must support it. This is also important for SMEs. Many SMEs are now selling through online platform, WhatsApp Business, websites and digital catalogues. They are not always using complex systems, but they are already transacting electronically. This Bill gives more clarity to this reality. Madam Speaker, I also wish to refer to section 14 (d) which deals with the availability of contractors. This provision is important because digital contracting must be fast, but it also must be fair and clean. Businesses must ensure that contract terms are provided in a clear and accessible manner. This is good for trust. It protects consumers, it protects SMEs, it protects suppliers, it reduces disputes, it encourages proper documentation. In practical terms, it means that when business is done electronically, the terms must not be hidden, vague or inaccessible. This is a sensible requirement. Modernisation should not mean confusion; it should mean clarity. Madam Speaker, I also welcome the provision recognising foreign certificates and electronic signatures. Mauritius is a trading economy. Our businesses do not transact only with our borders. They deal with buyers, suppliers, banks, shipping lines and investors from different jurisdictions. If we want Mauritius to remain credible as an international business and trading platform, our legal framework must be able to accommodate cross-border electronic transaction. This Bill takes us in that direction. Let me reiterate that Electronic Transaction (Amendment) Bill is not merely a technical piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, to conclude, I wish to congratulate my colleague, hon. Minister of Information and Technology for bringing forward this important and forward-looking piece of legislation, which is poised to bring about a major transformation in the digitalisation landscape of our country. My Ministry stands ready to work with his Ministry and with all relevant institutions to ensure that manufacturers, SMEs, exporters and cooperatives understand and make proper use of this new framework once enacted. Sensitisation will be important; implementation will be important. The private sector must know how to use these new tools safely and efficiently. With this word, Madam Speaker, I fully support this Bill and I wish well to my colleague. Thank you.

Thank you, hon. Minister. That was perfect timing. Hon. Minister of Labour. (6.45 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, during the break, I was joking with my colleague, hon. Dr. Arvin Boollel, and I was telling him that the hon. Minister of Technology has explained this highly technical Bill so clearly that any lawyer will only stand up and say –“I fully concur with my learned friend,” and sit down but, listening to the hon. Member from FMP, complètement à côté de la plaque; he did not understand a single word because he did not even listen to what the hon. Minister said. He was more enthusiastic reading what was prepared for him to read. How can you explain that he went on and on and on about Singapore when the hon. Minister never even once mentioned Singapore? Because our law today is not inspired by Singapore. No, Madam Speaker. If he had listened carefully, he would have heard the hon. Minister talk about UNCITRAL, United Nation Commission on International Trade Law, which is the United Nation arm responsible for progressive harmonisation and modernisation of the law of international trade. He would have heard the hon. Minister make reference to the Model Law devised by this UNCITRAL, the Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996, the Model Law on Electronic Signature 2001, the United Nation Convention on the Use of Electronic Communication in International Contract 2005. These are the articles that inspired today's Bill, not Singapore. And if he had listened carefully, what the hon. Minister has been talking about is e-signature, electronic signature. And he doesn't even make a difference; he doesn't even know the difference between an electronic signature and a digital signature. What is an electronic signature? Let me explain it very basically, Madam Speaker, for hon. Members of the House to understand what an electronic signature is. The electronic signature is an electronic version of your handwritten signature. For example, sometimes you would go in a restaurant, they will ask you to sign on a tablet. They give you a tablet and then you sign electronically. You use your own signature.

Even in the bank!

Sometimes you would have a PDF copy of your signature, you will affix it to a contract. And, sometimes, you would go on the internet, they will tell you to click if you accept the term, tick or click acceptance. This is electronic signature. And the law provides for more secure electronic signature. It is found in section 16 of the Electronic Transaction Act, where it is unique to the person using it, capable of identifying such person and created in a manner using the means under the sole control of the person using it. This is electronic signature. This is what we're dealing with today. Then there is what the hon. Member went on and on about, which is digital signature. Digital signature is a specific, highly secure type of electronic signature which uses cryptographic technology. When he was talking about PKI, I’m sure a lot of people thought he was talking about performance indicators. No. PKI is Public Key Infrastructure. You know, in order to secure this digital signature, you have a public key, which is with the authority that certifies this digital certificate, the digital signature, and then you have a private key, which is personal to the user. And digital signature has been used since 2000, since the Bill was passed. The law today is amending section 8 which deals with electronic signature. The provisions relating to digital signature in part 6 is not being amended. We are not talking about the authority – who is going to be licensed to issue certificate. In fact, we do not even need to have a licensing authority in Mauritius. Anyone can go on the internet today and buy a digital signature. Better still, they can go and download one, using Microsoft and have their own signature. The hon. Minister for Financial Services did not intervene. But maybe if she had intervened, she would no doubt have mentioned that since October 2023, the Financial Services Commission has issued guidelines for digital signatures. So, today, if you want to apply for a license to the Financial Services Commission, you can do it online using the platform of the FSC, but you cannot use any type of e-signature, you have to use a digital signature. When they talk about digital signature, you know what the FSC requires? The criteria? One of the criteria is that the digitally signed document shall be in PDF format. The digital certificate that he was talking about, the ICTA is not able to do it. Maupass is not able to do it. The digital certificate used to sign the document shall have been issued by a certificate authority listed on the Adobe approved trust list. If you want to use digital signature, you just go on Adobe, which is a PDF format, and see who are the trusted certificate agencies who can give you, who can deliver you a digital signature. So, there is no need, in order to implement the Bill, to create a new organisation who is going to issue those certificates in Mauritius. It already exists. So, this is why, Madam Speaker, when I was listening to him, he is clearly on the wrong side of the fence, on the wrong side of the Bill. Now, the Bill is very important because the Bill uses UNCITRAL Model Law. Why is this important? Precisely because of the issue raised by the hon. Member of the Opposition when he says – how are we going to prove things in court? What is the evidential value? How are we going to litigate it? If he had taken the time to go on UNCITRAL website, download those model laws and the convention, he would have seen that with the model law, there is an explanatory note; les travaux préparatoires, which go clause by clause, article by article, which explain what each article means, how it can be proven, why it is there, why we use that language and not the other language. If you go to court tomorrow, this is the same travaux préparatoires that are going to be used by lawyers to try to understand what was the intent of Parliament in drafting this. So, that is why we are not copying Singapore. We are taking the model law and we are going by the explanatory notes in the UNCITRAL law. The electronic transaction, Madam Speaker, is already here. Anyone who goes to book a plane or to book a hotel today, they go on the website. Now, what do they do? How do they form the contract? They sign everything and then they tick the box or they click the acceptance button. Now, the question is, if there is a dispute, how would we know that the person who clicked that button is really the contracting person? How would we know that there has not been someone else who have impersonated him? We are talking about OTP. The other day, a lady came to see me, Madam Speaker. She was telling me how she was victim of identity theft. How a hacker got into her phone. Each time, the bank keeps sending OTP, it went to that hacker. By the time the bank realised that she was dealing with a fraudster, the lady had lost close to Rs1 million! An hon. Member of the Government, my colleague, also told me how he was victim of the hackers. This is why, today, in Section 8, for the first time, we are introducing the concept of reliable method. So, an electronic signature is not enough. You need to have a reliable method to identify the person who electronically signed it and his intention behind signing it. So, that it can prevent any dispute in the future. Now, Madam Speaker, do you think that there is an urgency for us to make sure that we are able to fight against fraud? Or do you think we have to do what the hon. Member of the Opposition suggests and implement the whole master plan, wait for a couple of years with the infrastructure, with the architecture, with a digital signature, and then pass the law? We are passing the law because electronic transaction is a reality. E-commerce is a reality. How many people have now attempted to import goods directly? I won't cite the name of the platform, but we all do it.

No names, I said!

No names, but what I am saying is, it is a reality. We are already into e- signature. What this law provides is certainty, legal certainty, so that tomorrow, if there is a dispute in court, the court will stand guided by the UNCITRAL law and the Explanatory Memorandum. The big chunk is the e-signature. The other thing that this law does is to deal with a situation where you are dealing with an automatic messaging system. See, the question has been raised: if you are you have two individuals, two human beings negotiating a contract, it is very easy for you to understand the terms to discuss. What happens if you go on a website and you sign? I gave you the example of booking a hotel, you click on accept. On the other side, there is no human being. It is a machine. Automatically, the machine is concluding your contract. It sends you a confirmation – booking confirmed. No refund most of the time. But is this valid? Is a transaction between a human being and a robot and a computer valid? That was missing in our law. What Section 14 introduces is a whole series of provisions which clarify that a contract will not be nullified just because it is done between a human being and an automatic system. Then, when you have an automatic system – it has happened to all of us –, what happens when you make an error? What happens when you have a mistake? Today, if there are two people dealing with each other, you have ordered goods and then you realise, ‘Oh my God, I forgot to on the description, or I have booked a hotel. Oh, I forgot, I got the date wrong, the month wrong,’ you can automatically call the travel agency and tell them to rectify the hotel booking or call directly the hotel. But you can't do that with a computer. Once you go on the website and you are booking your hotel, if you make a mistake, the platform does not have any procedure for you to correct the mistake. That is it! You are done. You have lost your money. If you place an order for the wrong good, they will ship it and you have to accept it. Now, what is being proposed in this legislation is a section of the law which will allow people to correct an error where the platform does not give you the opportunity to correct that that mistake. This is very important because a lot of the people who use the platform today are not computer savvy. They are not computer literate. They are not very good at typing. A lot of them have certain ways, you know, and they make mistakes. So, this law is going to protect those people who make errors inadvertently. First, was the electronic signature. Second, was dealing with the machine. The third important reform is what my hon. colleague, hon. Ameer Meea, went at length with is the validity of the electronic records, that is going to facilitate trade. Today, if someone is importing goods, to be able to remove the goods from the ship, unload it, go through customs, he needs to have the original of the bill of lading. So, someone from the country where the goods have been loaded needs to courier the bill of lading in original form to the importer, and then the importer takes that bill of lading. Now, if it is credited, if he has received funding from the bank, he then needs to physically write, endorse it, assign it to the bank. This takes time. The third reform that is proposed in this Bill is to recognise and give effect to the electronic records. That will be a game changer because once Mauritius adopts and recognises this electronic transaction, the validity, the authenticity of these transactions, we will be able to be a real trans-shipment centre for Africa, for the region. And we could not do that because for the time being we are still using the archaic method of physically requiring documents, shipping documents, bill of lading in order to clear goods. So, Madam Speaker, for me, this is a landmark Bill, today. It is not a technical Bill. It is a Bill to facilitate trade. It is a Bill to protect Mauritians who already make use of electronic signature - not digital signatures - to protect them. I congratulate my hon. friend for coming up with this Bill, and I gladly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Hon. Minister, now you are summing up. Maybe your replies, I do not know. (7.03 p.m.)

Yes, sure. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all my hon. colleagues, Ministers, who have supported this Bill and also, hon. Baboolall for the comments made with regards to certain provisions. It is undeniable, Madam Speaker, that we cannot accept the status quo. We have to break that cycle, and we have to move forward. Moving forward also entails making decisions that would actually give hope to people, at the same time, there could be critics and we accept the critics. We are in a democracy. But the first thing that I would I would ask my colleague, hon. Baboolall, to do is probably to review the IT advisor that has probably been advising on this matter. Li'nn rat lamer kout ros, kouma nou dir. Because he is talking about digital signatures and I explained, as explained by hon. Uteem, it is about electronic signatures, not about digital signatures, here. Digital signatures rely on the Public Key Infrastructure, which is now an old technology. Now, with electronic signatures, there are different types of technologies that have come up, one of which is blockchain. Having said this, one of the key features of this legislation is that this Bill is technology agnostic. And this is why we are taking independence from any situation of vendor lock-in, as we call it. We do not want to be locked in by any vendor. We want to be technology agnostic so that we can do what is best for this nation with the funds contributed into the Consolidated Fund by that very nation. So, this is what drives.

Technology agnostic - I like that.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, now I can I have a question for hon. Member there, when he is taking bookings for his operations from the tourists who are abroad, when he is accepting it, what is the protection that he has today? Should those tourists who are booking his facilities dysfunction? There is no recognised contract. There is no recognised contract. Now, when you see an offer on a portal, that means it is an invitation to trade. When the customer accepts it, then there is an agreement that is formed; when consideration moves, then there is a contract that is formed. In the absence of those contracts, you are left with no help. You should actually say thank you to me, to this Government, to having brought this legislation which we are using to even protect you.

(Interruptions)

With that, we are protecting you for your operations that you that you conduct. Yes, absolutely. Therefore, this is one of the key features. We are bringing protection, the legal basis for further protection, and my colleague hon. Yeung Sik Yuen will certainly build up on that for consumer protection online. We have set the foundation, Madam Speaker, for that to take place. I am also very glad that hon. Baboolall read the Blueprint with a lot of attention. I am sure his ICT advisor did as well. In an ideal world, in an ideal world, Madam Speaker, we read the Blueprint, we sleep, the next morning when we wake up, it is all done. All the infrastructures are there, all the digital certificates or electronic signatures are there, and everything is there. This is called utopia. But here we are in the real world, and in the real world, we do not go with a big bang approach. We go with a progressive approach. We build little by little and little by little. This is how you became lawyer as well. You had to do your first degree, your Bar, you build little by little. It is all the same because we are in a real and practical world. It does not work otherwise. Now, when we when we talk about IT, we, as we said, we break the status quo. Look at the previous IT Minister, he lived in the status quo. He did not break it. But we, we have the courage, we have the courage to break the status quo and we are breaking it. And you have seen the support that we are getting from the hon. Ministers in this House. The enablers and the pillars that you spoke about. Yes, they are intertwined. They are in some cases interdependent, but with regards to this legislation, there is no dependency. So, this legislation comes as an additional brick on which we can build further. There are other elements that depend on this. This is why in a chronological order, we have to build this new Mauritius that we are talking about. That aligns as well with what with the statements made by hon. Uteem. With regard to timing of messages. We have actually built up within this legislation the time stamp of messages when they leave and messages when they come into systems. Of course, there are difference of microseconds because these are transiting through fibre optics cable and they can be submarine cables as well. From Singapore, from the UK to Mauritius, they come within seconds. But from a legal standpoint, it is critical for us to establish what is the time at which this message left, what is the time at which this message came. In the absence of this, we rely on the very archaic postal rule. This is an extension to actually actualise it within the electronic world because the postal rule works best in the physical world. With regards to jurisdictions. You are a learned lawyer. You would know that one of the doctrines of contract of law is the freedom of contracting. They have the liberty to establish which country will have jurisdiction on the contract. Therefore, we leave it open to the parties for them to contract; this is exercising the freedom of contracting. Now, we also recognise geographical neutrality. As you said it, I mean, by way of your own admission, we are living in a world where we are using cloud technologies. Now, if the somebody signs the document in the UK, his place of business is Mauritius. Do we take the place of business as the UK or Mauritius for the purpose of the of the law? It has to be Mauritius. So, this brings as well geographical neutrality by way of the amendments that we are bringing. I would really love it for you, hon. Member, if you could visit our Data Centre.

Hon. Minister, you should address me, not him.

Okay, sorry, I address you, Madam Speaker. So, I would really love it, Madam Speaker, if someday we could together visit the Data Centre of the Government, which is housed within the premises of Mauritius Telecom at Rose Belle. It is a state-of-the- art infrastructure. Now, that is infrastructure, but infrastructure is seamless, that is behind us. He sees only the front. He does not see the back because infrastructure is seamless. We do not want to show all the servers that are there. We want to show the services. This is why we had to enact this law so that those services could sit on this legislation, and the electronic signatures could be recognised. To my surprise, there was no comment there with regards to the Africa Continental Free Trade Area. Because this legislation opens the way forward, not just for transfer of people, of capital, of services, but also for transfer of data. This is where the transferable electronic records are actually very important because we can now trade with Kenya through electronic means. The contracts are formed electronically and data, transactions and payments would flow but this is a critical part. Why do I say that also? Because we want AI to play a critical role within our jurisdiction but without recognising a contract being formed, how will that transaction initiated by AI algorithms gain legal basis in our courts of law? It would not if we do not have recognisable transferable electronic records and this is what this legislation is bringing. With regard to the physical presence of people at the post offices, earlier, we had this biometric means of doing remote registration on MauPass but because of what the previous Government did with regard to the trust system on cyber security, we decided that we had to stop that biometric recognition because we were not sure how that was being used. Do we now expose our nation's personal data because the previous Government was doing it? Makes no sense. We have come with the promise to make a difference, to bring the change. And by way of this legislation, we are also bringing that change. You mentioned public key infrastructure, as we said, yes, that is one technology that is used and it is old and now we are moving forward with secure electronic digital signatures. We believe that this legislation is setting the base for us to have a more modern Mauritius. And on this note, I believe we have addressed most of the points, but I have got two points for hon. Ms Henriette-Manan. With regard to Rodrigues, we are very pleased that you mentioned those points. Now, obviously, the changes that we are bringing here applies to the Republic, to Mauritius, to Rodrigues, to Agalega, to all the outer islands. We have a special place for Rodrigues in our hearts and this is why we, my team and myself, upon the approval of the hon. Prime Minister, are travelling to Rodrigues next week to talk about cyber security, artificial intelligence to our people from Rodrigues and we are also going to create ambassadors for KOREK, so that those ambassadors can then take that message forward to them. And on this note, Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to also tell the House that we are bringing changes to the Cyber Security and Cybercrime Act, which will actually establish the institution that we mentioned in the blueprint. The name given to that institution in the blueprint is the National Cyber Security and Resilience Agency. So, that is a name that has been given. Obviously, that will be finalised when we have the right types of discussions around this but I want the House to rest assured that every word that appears in that blueprint is implementable and it will be implemented and this is one of the first few steps that we have established. And on this note, Madam Speaker, I would like to once again thank all the hon. Members for the support, for the input. I would like to thank my team as well for all the work that we have done. And I would like to thank also the hon. Member Baboolall for the critics because those are constructive. And with this note, I would like to commend the Bill to the House.

Thank you, hon. Minister for seconding your Bill. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) The Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill (No. V of 2026) was considered and agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill (No. V of 2026) was read a third time and passed.