Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the outset I wish to inform the House Road Traffic Act was amended in September 2019 through the Road Traffic (Amendment No. 3), Act No. 24 of 2019 with a view to facilitating the electronic payment of fixed penalty notices. It was also announced in the Budget Speech 2022/2023 of the then hon. Minister of Finance that the payment of road traffic fines would be offered online. However, the Road Traffic (Amendment No. 3) of 2019 was not proclaimed as enhancement of both IT system of the Police Department and the Master and Registrar of the Supreme Court was in progress. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in his report for the financial year 2024/2025, the Director of Audit has observed that the revenue from fixed penalty notices served by the police officers were collected at District Courts and credited as fines under the control of the Judiciary instead of a revenue item for the Mauritius Police Force. Therefore, the Director of Audit recommended to digitalise the whole process of raising fines and payment of same. The reform is expected to enhance efficiency, transparency and proper revenue tracking. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as regard of the main question, I have been informed that in February this year by the Master and Registrar of the Supreme Court that the system for online payment of fixed penalty notices on the Supreme Court portal is technically ready to accept online payment of fixed penalty notices through mobile banking apps, Internet banking facilities, debit and credit cards or MauCAS account transfers. The Police Department has also informed that their IT system is ready. They are proposing in parallel to look into the possibility to use the beSafeMoris mobile app for payment of fixed penalty notices – hon. Dr. Ramtohul is aware of what I am saying. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am further informed by the Commissioner of Police that the amendments brought to the Road Traffic Act of 2019 are not fully aligned with those introduced by the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act of 2025 in January this year in relation to the reintroduction of the Penalty Point System. Therefore, Commissioner of Police has recommended that a new piece of legislation be enacted to make provision for online payment of fixed penalty notices in line with the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act of 2025. My Ministry has initiated consultations with the hon. Attorney General’s Office in that respect.

Yes. Do you have a question?

I have a question. I wanted to ask the hon. Minister, whether he would consider amending the law to allow for the payment of fixed penalty beyond the 28 days limit as it is now, impossible after 28 days which means that you have to go to Court and that only burdens the Court with even more work, when it could be and that is the question, whether the hon. Minister would consider allowing for payment after even with a penalty system imposed for a higher amount to be paid so long as you get to do it before it is fixed on cause list of the Court, it would be, I think, in the interest of your Ministry and justice itself?

As the law stands, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the 28 days period are exceeded, the fines and the points are both doubled – as per the amendment brought in December last year. So, there will have to be amendment to the Road Traffic Act once again for that to occur.

If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir?

Yes, yes.

I understand but the issue is once you fail to pay within the 28 days, you have to go to Court. You have to wait for the notice to be issued to you, the summons after months, sometimes years and you cannot pay even though, for whatever reasons you may have neglected to pay within the 28 days. So, as far as the payment is concerned, whether he proposes now, especially for those offences which do not fall under the Penalty Point System, whether he proposes to bring amendments, so to allowed that we can pay at any time even if there is the introduction of a penalty as I said so long as you can do it.

We will look into it.

Thank you. Hon. Members with the Table has been advised that the following PQs have been withdrawn: B/446, B/449, B/454, B/455, B/456, B/460, B/464, B/465, B/468, B/469, B/472, B/475, B/476, B477, B/478, B/480, B/481, B/482, B/483 B/484, and B/486. Time is over! MOTION SUSPENSION OF S.O. 10(2)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that all the business on today’s Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 10. Mr Mohamed rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. PUBLIC BILLS First Reading On motion made and seconded, the Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Bill (No. V of 2026) was read a first time. At this stage, Madam Speaker took the Chair.

Please be seated. Yes, hon. Attorney General! Second Reading THE CERTIFICATE OF CHARACTER BILL (No. II of 2026) Order for Second Reading read. (4.23 p.m.) The Attorney General (Mr G. P. C. Glover, SC): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Certificate of Character Bill (No. II of 2026) be read a second time. Let me start by saying this, Madam Speaker, I make no apology for what will be a lengthier than usual intervention in support of this Bill. The Certificate of Character Bill is yet another piece of the puzzle we are building for the benefit of the people. One may wonder, what this Bill has to do with the rule of law or access to justice for that matter. But then it would be missing the point which is that this Bill in fact a liberating piece of legislation. It is a necessary step to promote social reintegration for persons who have had a brush with the law and who continued to carry the stigma of a criminal conviction, which always weighs heavily on the convicted person whether with regard to his entrenched right to work, his right to free movement and of course one must never forget the indirect effect on his family. Before turning to the details of this Bill, it is useful to begin with two simple benign questions. First, what is a Certificate of Character, and second, why does it matter. A Certificate of Character or a certificat de caractère is an official document issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions certifying whether a person has a criminal record. It is still often referred to as certificat de moralité or even in common parlance, we hear that a person pe attan gagn so moralité – he or she is waiting for that valuable document, although a literal translation from the kreol might lead to another concept altogether. This Certificate, by whatever name called, is nowadays almost always required for employment, for further studies, for visa and immigration procedures and for a range of other official purposes. For many people therefore, it is not an abstract legal document; it is the paper that stands between them and a job, a seat at university, the possibility of travelling abroad or the possibility of a new start in their lives. That is why this Bill matters and why it has been eagerly awaited. Madam Speaker, prior to 2006, there was no legislative framework governing so called Certificates of Character. These were issued under an administrative practice which had developed over time. In 2006, the Certificate of Morality Act provided, for the first time, a basic statutory framework. That Act introduced, subject to certain exceptions, a cutoff period of ten years in relation to crimes and misdemeanours. It also provided that a person who had been granted a free pardon under section 75 of the Constitution would be deemed never to have been convicted of the relevant offence, but the Act, for example, made no provision for the Director of Public Prosecutions to delegate his powers. In 2012, the Certificate of Character Act repealed the earlier law and introduced a number of changes. The title was changed from ‘Certificate of Morality’ to ‘Certificate of Character’ and rightly so, because the law should not pretend that it is the universal judge of morality. The law deals in legal consequences and it should do so with clarity and restraint. The 2012 Act reduced the cutoff period applicable for certain less serious offenses from 10 to five years. It allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions to delegate his powers to the Commissioner of Police or another officer. It extended the categories of persons who are deemed never to have been convicted. It also introduced a three-month limitation period for repeat applications subject to certain conditions in order to reduce unnecessary administrative burden. Those changes were essential and useful then but with hindsight, they did not go far enough. Madam Speaker, the present law, the 2012 legislation has remained in important respect, unduly harsh. It has caused real hardship to people convicted of less serious offenses because convictions would continue to appear on their certificates in circumstances where that disclosure serves little public good but causes lasting private damage. People have been denied jobs. People have been denied access to university. People who had paid their debt to society have found that society was still presenting them with a bill. That is not good policy. It is not very wise and, in many cases, it is just not just. A criminal sentence, Madam Speaker, is imposed by a court according to law but once that sentence has been served, the punishment has been meted out. A second social punishment is not helpful. Justice is not served if a minor mistake becomes a lifelong civil disability in practice. Madam Speaker, the rule of law is not only about sanctions. It is also about proportion, fairness, and the conditions of reintegration. A society is made safer, not more dangerous when people who have offended and who have done what the law required of them to pay their dues are given a fair opportunity to work, to study, to support a family and to live as citizens rather than permanent suspects. I put the question fair and square, Madam Speaker, how shall we prevent reoffending if we tell someone that there is no path for him to lead a reformed life? Rehabilitation, Madam Speaker, is not softness. It is social intelligence; it is also basic justice. This is why the hon. Prime Minister promised, earlier in our mandate, that the current law would be changed and we are today honouring that promise. This Bill therefore repeals the existing 2012 Act and replaces it with a more just, more coherent and more humane framework. Its object is clear; to reduce unnecessary barriers to employment, social reintegration for persons convicted of offences, whilst preserving proper safeguards for the protection of society. In other words, it seeks the right balance between second chances and public safety. One of the problems with the present law is that certain convictions may continue to appear on a certificate for life, even where in any meaningful sense, they should be treated as spent. That defeats the very idea of a spent conviction. Now, if the law recognises that after a certain period of time and subject to certain conditions, a person should be allowed to move on, then the certificate should reflect that reality. Clause 5 of the Bill addresses that issue. It provides that no conviction will appear on a person’s Certificate of Character where that person has been granted a free pardon, has been discharged absolutely or conditionally or falls within the categories set out in that clause; subject, of course, to the exceptions for serious offenses provided for in the First Schedule. Thus, subject to that caveat, a conviction will no longer appear where either the person has been given only a fine not exceeding Rs50,000 instead of the current threshold of Rs5,000 and two years instead of 5 years have elapsed since the date of conviction. Or secondly, whether or not he has also been fined, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and ten years have lapsed since the date of that conviction. And thirdly, the offense was committed whilst a person was still under the age of 18. That last provision is particularly important. A civilised legal system does not deny that young people make mistakes but neither should it decide that a mistake made in youth must follow a person forever into adulthood. If we speak seriously about children reform and the possibility of redemption, then the law must speak seriously too. However, Madam Speaker, it is important to stress here that these new parameters will not apply to those serious offenses listed in the First Schedule to the Bill. Convictions listed there will continue to appear on the Certificate of Character indefinitely. This Bill, Madam Speaker, also addresses discrimination in employment. Clause 4 provides that where a person’s Certificate of Character specifies that he has been convicted of a crime or misdemeanour, his employer shall not discriminate against him where that offense is unrelated to the nature of his employment and a prospective employer shall not discriminate against him where that offense is unrelated to the employment for which he is being considered. That is obviously a sensible provision. A criminal record is not a magic answer to every employment question. Relevance matters, context matters, not every past offense bears on every future occupation. To say otherwise, is simply to replace judgement with reflex. Clause 12, Madam Speaker, makes the necessary consequential amendment to the Equal Opportunities Act so that this protection is clearly reflected there as well. It provides that no employer or prospective employer shall discriminate against another person, where that person’s certificate of character specifies a conviction which is not related to his employment or to the employment for which he is being considered. Here, may I add, as an ad hoc measure, that the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission was consulted in relation to that amendment. Clause 7, Madam Speaker, deals with the mode of application for a certificate of character. It also provides for regulations to be made by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, in relation to matters connected with the application process. That is entirely proper, the mode of application being essentially administrative. It must be workable, efficient and capable of adjustment when practical experience shows that improvement is needed. Not every administrative detail belongs to the body of an act. Now, let me turn to the First Schedule of the Bill which lists the serious offences which will continue to appear on a certificate of character. Generally, there has been a policy decision, Madam Speaker, by the Government to keep certain offences on the First Schedule, and, consequently, on certificates for life. These are serious offences such as offences against children, aggravated assaults, murders, terrorism, trafficking in persons, manslaughter, rape, dangerous drugs, offences, etc. However, the Schedule has been revised for three principal reasons – • First, the current schedule refers to several provisions of the law which have already been repealed. To that extent, it is outdated. • Secondly, a number of serious offences, which plainly ought to appear on a certificate of character, are not presently included. • Thirdly, and importantly, the current schedule is not user-friendly. It often refers only to sections of enactments without indicating in ordinary language the offences to which those sections relate. The new First Schedule corrects those defects. It no longer refers to repealed laws. It broadens the list of serious offences where this is necessary for the protection of society. It adds, in a third column, a description of the offence concerned so that the Schedule can be understood, not only by lawyers with a statute book open in front of them, but by ordinary citizens reading the law as it should be read – plainly. Madam Speaker, the list of serious offences has been revised as follows – Clause 9 of this very Bill, which criminalises tampering with, forging or fraudulently altering a certificate of character has been included. Secondly, the Child Protection Act with its corresponding sections has been removed, given that this Act has, since 2020, been repealed by the Children’s Act of that same year. Accordingly, a number of provisions under the Children’s Act 2020, which had not been included when that Act came into operation 6 years ago, have now been included, thereby plugging a significant gap. Thirdly, previously, all offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act were considered to be serious offences, and any offence under that Act had to remain on the certificate of character for life. Even a small fine of Rs5,000 for possession of a very small amount of gandia for personal use or for smoking gandia would remain on the certificate of character for life. In effect, that was a lifelong sentence for a minor charge, and that was very unfair. It was important, in our view, to carve out from offences on the Dangerous Drugs Act that type of offence. So, today, a fine of up to Rs50,000 for the possession of a dangerous drug in a minimal quantity for personal use or for smoking would eventually disappear from the certificate of character after two years. Fourthly, sections 16 to 20 of the Cybersecurity and Cybercrime Act, for example, misuse of fake profile, cyberbullying, cyber extortion, revenge pornography and cyberterrorism have been added to the list. Sections 3 and 4 of the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act have been removed since they have been repealed and replaced since 2023 by the Financial Crimes Commission Act. Accordingly, the relevant sections under the Financial Crimes Commission Act have been added to the list. Sections 58, 59, 64, and 65 of the Representation of the People Act, that is, illegal payment, corrupt withdrawal of candidature, bribery and treating and undue influence, which are considered to be serious offences, have been added to the list. Causing death by careless driving when under influence of alcohol, drug or intoxicating substance, in breach of the new section 123D of the Road Traffic Act, is now considered to be a serious offence, serious enough to be included in that schedule, Madam Speaker. Lastly, all the sections of the Criminal Code have been reviewed. Some have been removed either because they have already been repealed or because are considered to be less serious offences, given the sentence provided, and some new sections of the Criminal Code have been added. For example, we have sections 52 to 56, 76A, 85, 87, et j’en passe, which have been removed since they no longer exist. Offences such as enticing away servants, pawnbroking and money lending without a lawful authority, hindering judicial sale, disturbing a religious ceremony, involuntary homicide, wounds and blows, taking part in an unlawful assembly have been removed since they are not as serious as warranting that they remain on that list. Here, Madam Speaker, I must add that amendments will be brought, at Committee Stage, to reflect the fact that after careful review it is now being proposed that some further offences do not deserve to be on the First Schedule list of serious offences, while others ought to be included on that list. Last night, because of that, I have circulated to all Members of the House a new amended schedule with all the changes tracked so that they can follow what will happen at Committee Stage on the next occasion. One of the offences which would not remain on that list is, for example, simple larceny. A very common offence which young offenders may commit and whose consequences stay with them for life. At the same time, more serious cases of larceny, such as larceny with violence and larceny by night breaking, will remain on the First Schedule. This, Madam Speaker, is a concrete example of the balancing exercise which we are doing here between rehabilitation and keeping society safe. Madam Speaker, the Bill also brings consistency between the English and French versions of the certificate itself. A comparative reading of the present forms reveals unnecessary differences and some inaccuracies. There are also discrepancies in the explanatory notes and grammatical and structural defects in the French text. These have all been addressed in the Second and Third Schedules to the Bill.

Wow!

The Bill also extends the validity of a certificate from three months to four months. It is a modest amendment, but useful, practical improvement. Now, Madam Speaker, before I conclude, I wish to say a word about the suggestion that I have read about in the press, made in some quarters, that there was no need for a new bill and that a few amendments to the existing Act would have sufficed. I do not share that view. The Bill before the House runs to nearly 29 pages. The current law is 14 pages long. If we had proceeded by amendment, the amending legislation would itself have been longer and more cumbersome than the Act being amended. Almost every section of the existing law would have had to be amended or repealed. New provisions would have to be inserted. All three Schedules would effectively have to be repealed and replaced. At some point, Madam Speaker, one much choose between patch work and comprehensive legislative drafting. This Bill chooses clarity. When a statutory scheme is being substantially re-worked, clarity is better served by repeal and replacement than by a long trail of textual surgery. Madam Speaker, this Bill has been prepared through close collaboration between my Office, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Law Reform Commission. I, here, place on record my appreciation for their work and their inputs. The reform before this House, Madam Speaker, today, is a practical act, but it is also something more than that. It reflects a view of justice. A view that the law must protect society, certainly, but also a view that the law must leave room for amendment of life, not only amendment of statutes. A fair legal system is one that punishes where punishment is due but does not continue to punish when the demands of justice have already been met. That in essence, Madam Speaker, is what this Bill seeks to do and with those words, I commend the Bill to the House.

Thank you. It has to be seconded. Thank you, hon. Minister of Agro- Industry. Dr. Boolell rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

Maybe it would be wise to break for tea now. Then you can make your speech, hon. Leader of the Opposition. At 4.46 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.23 p.m. with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Yes, please be seated. We are playing musical chairs? Yes, alright! Hon. Leader of the Opposition! (5.23 p.m.) The Leader of the Opposition (Mr G. Lesjongard): Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to intervene on the Certificate of Character Bill and I shall be brief and to the point, Madam Speaker.

Thank you.

Allow me at the very outset, Madam Speaker, to say that we support the principle behind the Bill. We believe in rehabilitation and we believe in second chances, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, we recognise that a criminal record, particularly for minor, in relation to offences which have taken place a long time back to create some impediments to employment, housing and most importantly, dignity, Madam Speaker. These barriers, if left unaddressed, may paradoxically increase the risk of reoffending. We also, Madam Speaker, acknowledge the Bill’s stated objective is specifically to reduce these barriers and facilitate social integration which is necessary for our society. Now, let me start by highlighting some positive measures which render this legislation less stringent and which will help abate if not, eliminate those impediments I mentioned earlier. Firstly, Madam Speaker, the increase in the fine threshold for eligibility from Rs5,000 to Rs50,000. Secondly the waiting period which has now been reduced from five to two years, Madam Speaker. Lastly, the fact that with this upcoming legislation, persons sentenced to imprisonment of up to 3 years may receive a clean certificate after 10 prime three years. Also, Madam Speaker, we note that youth offences committed under 18 are now automatically excluded from disclosure and these are, like I said, positive aspects of this piece of legislation. It is also to be noted that Clause 4 of the Bill introduces, like earlier the hon. Attorney General stated, a statutory prohibition against employment discrimination where a conviction is not related to the role. Now, Madam Speaker, although this is a positive step, it suffers from an intrinsic defect in the way it has been formulated and its application is like to be unpractical and may lead to an inconsistent approach. Let me explain, Madam Speaker. First of all, legislative process on paper does not automatically translate to actual liberation on the ground. The critical question before this House today is not whether this Bill is less stringent but whether, it will ultimately achieve its aim of effectively reducing the barriers to employment and social integration. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the answer is no as this Bill carries unintended disadvantages. Let me illustrate what I just said by referring to the following clauses of the Bill and I will refer to the clause I mentioned earlier, that is Clause 4 which deals with non- discrimination and the employment barriers because I believe that this Clause is structurally ambiguous, Madam Speaker. The Bill as it is, prohibits discrimination only where a conviction is not related to employment yet, we note that this Bill provides no criteria, no guidance and no fast-tract at judication mechanism. Employers are thus left to make complex legal judgements in isolation and its unintended but natural result would be an utter confusion and lack of understanding in giving effect to that particular clause. Madam Speaker, I fear that without as statutory code of practice from the Equal Opportunities Commission and an accessible complaints process, this provision runs the risk of being symbolic only. Worse, Madam Speaker, employers’ uncertainty may lead to overcompliance thereby rejecting all applications with disclosed convictions or informal background checks that bypass the certificate altogether. Madam Speaker, let me now turn to Clause 6 of the Bill which deals with the administrative capacity and the role of the Director of Public Prosecution. This Clause centralises the issuance of Character Certificate by the office of the Director of Public Prosecution. Although this may enhance consistency, on the other hand, it raises serious capacity concerns, Madam Speaker. The Director of Public Prosecution constitutional mandate is prosecution, not high-volume administrative certification. Madam Speaker, I fear that if there is a surge in application submitted to the DPP’s office, this might give rise to processing delays and create a new bureaucratic barrier, Madam Speaker. It goes without saying that going through the red tape would, in fact, obstruct progress and hinder efficiency. Madam Speaker, the Bill correctly notes that a free pardon under section 75 of our Constitution results in a clean certificate but we must be precise. This Bill’s mechanism is not a pardon; it is what is referred to as an administrative spent conviction whereby certain convictions become spent or are not disclosed after a period of time. Madam Speaker, this is a totally different concept. Any attempt to combining the two risks compromising and eroding the solemn constitutional prerogative of mercy which the House should know, is reserved for exceptional cases of injustice or extraordinary rehabilitation. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in Mauritius has, in recent years, been the subject of public debate concerning transparency and accountability. Madam Speaker, I strongly believe that the time has come to consider legislative or procedural reforms to ensure that the advice of the Commission on the prerogative of mercy and the reason for the President’s decision is made public but having said that, it should be subject to necessary safeguards for privacy and national security. You may feel able to agree that this would be a major step in increasing public confidence in the system. Madam Speaker, the Bill introduces a QR Code verification and a dedicated digital platform. Although this is a positive step, unfortunately, it raises a series of questions as it lacks explicit data governance provisions. For example, who controls access to the underlying database? How will spent convictions be securely archived or deleted? What are the safeguards in place designed to prevent misuse by authorised authorities? The Bill does not provide any formal appeal mechanism for individuals who believe their certificate incorrectly discloses a conviction. Madam Speaker, let me conclude, like I said, I will be brief, by saying that the measure of a just society is not only how it punishes wrong doings but also how it offers a pathway back to citizenship for those who have erred and served their debts. This Bill, no doubt, like I said earlier, represents a step in the right direction but, Madam Speaker, a step taken without safeguards and without practical enforcement mechanism, will fall short of its promise. I am done, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much. Now, we have the hon. Minister of Labour. (5.33 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, when I listen to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he always fails to justify why in the past 10 years that his government was in power, they did not do anything. And now, when this Government is trying to do something, he is always criticising us. Let me remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition, as far back as 08 September 2015 when his party was in power, MSM was in power, this is what the hon. Attorney General then said, the question was about when would amendment to the Certificate of Character Act be proposed, he stated – “My Office has started consultations with relevant stakeholders in relation to the amendments to be brought to the Certificate of Character Act.” That was 2015. Then 2016, same Attorney General, said that – As stated in the Government Programme, legislation will be coming to Parliament. We are envisaging possibly even avoiding stigma by maybe looking into equal opportunities. It is being amended as well. But legislation will be forthcoming. Again, hon. Members will note that in line with the Government Programme, legislation will be forthcoming because we are very concerned with the present state of affairs as well. It goes on and on like this. Every time, Members of the Opposition had asked questions about the Certificate of Character. They kept saying the same thing each time. On 13 June 2017 – that was the former MSM Attorney General – I wish to assure the House that amendment to both the Certificate of Character Act – and, as I have said, there are other acts as well. I will mention them shortly – they will be brought to this House by the end of this year, time permitting. That was back in 2017. So, they keep saying that they will amend and that they will bring changes, but they never did! So, it is this Government who is coming with the appropriate legislative change to correct an essential unfairness. Madam Speaker, according to Statistics Mauritius, as at June 2025, out of 5,078 adult convicts admitted in prison in 2024, some 3,728 were reoffenders who had been imprisoned in the past. That is 73.4% of convicts tend to reoffend. In an article published by the lecturers from the University of Technology in Mauritius entitled “Trends in Incarceration and Recidivism in Mauritius –Raising the Alarm,” the authors identified the main challenge for rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-detainees as the Certificate of Character, which was an obstacle for gaining employment. This is why, Madam Speaker, the main purpose of the Bill is precisely to reduce barriers to employment and social integration of person who have been convicted of an offence. But it is not only about employment. You know, when I was practicing a few years ago, a student came to see me. The student wanted to apply for a seat in university. He had excellent grades, but he was very concerned because he had smoked in public. And because he had smoked in public, he had a fine, and because of that fine, he was at risk of not securing a seat in a university outside of Mauritius. We did what we had to do, which was a petition to the President through the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy. We managed to secure a pardon, but it takes time, and it costs. Another student came to see us only three years ago. She was apprehended for shoplifting. Although she has always claimed to be innocent, somehow, she was not represented. She found herself, on the same day, in front of a court, pleading guilty and getting a fine for larceny. Then, she decided to get married. Because she was getting married to a foreigner, she was not going to get the necessary visa or the necessary residence permit because of that incident, of which, she has always claimed to be innocent. Again, we had to go through the same system of applying to the President through the Commission of Prerogative of Mercy to get a parole. Today, with this law, we are changing it. Today, with this law, any offences committed by a juvenile before the age of 18 will be expunged from the Certificate of Character. It will not appear anymore. Petty offences like larceny will no longer appear on the Certificate of Character. Previously, even if you had only a fine, if it was larceny, it had to appear in your Certificate of Character. So, there are other offences, for example, drug related offences; smoking cannabis, gandia; small possession of gandia for consumption; a lot of people have been caught with that. As they say, erreur de jeunesse. But that stigma stays with them all along, throughout their life. There was no remission, no possibility of expunging this conviction, however mundane it may look today, from the Certificate of Character. So, I commend the hon. Attorney General because he did a real balancing act when he came up with this legislation. There are serious offences that are in the First Schedule; serious offences that will appear on your Certificate of Character what come may. Even if you have only a fine, even if you did not have imprisonment, it will always be there because society recognises the seriousness of that offence. That is very important. I will tell you why. Let us suppose tomorrow, someone is applying to the Ministry of Gender Equality to be a foster family or for adoption and that person was convicted for sexual assault over a juvenile or any other crime against a child many years ago. Obviously, this is a very material consideration to be taken into account when deciding whether to allow that person la garde, to become the foster parent of a minor child. If I am a banking institution and I am going to employ someone who is going to deal with money, I need to make sure that that person has not been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty. Similarly, if someone is going to travel outside of Mauritius, another country would want to know if that person in Mauritius had been convicted of a serious offence like terrorism or other activity which may put the security of their country in jeopardy. So, this is the balancing act – making sure that in the First Schedule, we have a list of major offences. That list has been updated because since 2012, there have been new legislations. So, we need to include those new offences that have been created. Then, what this schedule does is it removes certain offences that we consider are no longer serious offences. To give the example already quoted by the hon. Attorney General, possession of drugs or offences of larceny. Then, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out, the major change in this legislation is that, for the first time, a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment up to three years, other than a major offence in the First Schedule, that person will have a chance to have a Certificate of Character not mentioning his conviction for imprisonment after 10 years. That is a big relief for a lot of people who have spent their time, their conviction. Now, the hon. Leader of the Opposition takes exception to Section 4, which deals with equal opportunity when someone looks for employment. May I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that a similar provision already exists under the Equal Opportunities Act. The major difference between the provision that exists under the Equal Opportunities Act and what we are introducing is that under the Equal Opportunities Act, you cannot discriminate against someone who has been convicted of an offence that is irrelevant. The term used in the Equal Opportunities Act was “irrelevant” to the job. A job that you have applied for or the job that you are already in. Now, there was an amount of subjectivity when you use “irrelevant.” The employer can always say, for you, it may not look irrelevant. But for me, subjectively, it is very relevant that you smoked gandia 15 years ago. Now, you are replacing that subjective element with an objective criterion, which is, the offence must not be related to the job. So, even if you had smoke gandia in the past, if whatever job you are going to do has absolutely nothing to do with the erreur de jeunesse that you have done. You cannot be discriminated against. Now, the hon. Leader of the Opposition says that the law does not provide for any sanction. Again, because he does not know how this works. This law works hand-in-hand with the Equal Opportunities Act and Equal Opportunities Act already provides any employee, worker or prospective employee who feels that he has been discriminated on the basis of a conviction, he has to apply to the Equal Opportunities Commission, who carries out an investigation. Then the Equal Opportunities Commission refers the matter to the Equal Opportunities Tribunal and it is the Equal Opportunities Tribunal who has the power to sanction including imposing fines and sending people to jail and other remedial action. So, there is absolutely no reason to include all these provisions again in the Certificate of Character Act because they are already in the Equal Opportunities Act. Then, the hon. Leader of the Opposition talks about QR code, talks about data protection, talks about all these lacks of security and safety. But if the hon. Leader of the Opposition had taken the time to look at the existing law, the existing Certificate of Character Act of 2012, he would have found out that these provisions already exist in the law. Already, you do an application online, electronically, and already, if you look at the schedule, you will see the QR code – it is already operating like this. So, nothing has changed. If anything, things would improve. He is saying that the DPP does not have the staff but that is why the DPP has the power to delegate. In fact, if he had gone through the system, if he had taken the time, to ask the people how do we get a Certificate of Character, he would have found out that today, it is the police who has the greatest responsibility because whenever there is a conviction, there is a central database at the police. So, the police prosecutor is for one who would take the conviction, the report and send it to the centralised system, not the DPP. The DPP does not have record. So, whenever there is someone who applies for a Certificate of Character, the DPP is going to ask the police to retrieve the information from the database of the police which is in a secured location with all the necessary protection including data protection. So, it is not the DPP. So, I am just informing the hon. Leader of the Opposition because, obviously, he has no clue about how a Certificate of Character is applied, how it is delivered. Madam Speaker, I am not going to be long. I wish to put on record my sincere thanks for the hon. Attorney General to bring this very important legislation not even two years into our mandate and I have no doubt that with this piece of legislation, a lot of people who have been denied access to a job, who have been denied the ability to be reintegrated, to be reinserted in society, will have a second chance. Thank you.

Thank you very much, hon. Minister. Now, we have hon. Dr. Ms Daureeawo. (5.49 p.m.) Dr. Ms R. Daureeawo (Third Member for Rivière des Anguilles & Souillac): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Certificate of Character Bill. I have carefully sent to all the hon. Members in this House and it appears that it is clear that at its heart, Madam Speaker, this Bill asks an important moral and social question – whether one single mistake after years have passed, after punishment has been served should continue to block a person from decent work, dignity and a place in society. This Bill, Madam Speaker, answers this question, at least in part, by saying no. What we are called to consider is not whether consequences should ensue, – they should, of course, – but whether those consequences should endure indefinitely without regard to time, reform or rehabilitation. Madam Speaker, I have listened to hon. Uteem who has shared his experience as a Barrister and I will also admit that during my years of practice at the Bar, I have witnessed individuals who have been, for too long, trapped in a cycle or rejection, not because of who they are today, but because of who they were once. So, this this is why, Madam Speaker, to me, personally, I consider this Bill to be humane and a very meaningful reform. I have witnessed opportunities denied, families strained to breaking point. Consequences have been denied always, Madam Speaker, just because of that single piece of document known as the Certificate of Character. Each attempt by many people because of one single mistake end up the same way, denied, dismissed or discarded and this is why, Madam Speaker, I say that second chances must be real. They should not be merely spoken about. I am sure we have all in this House seen and witnessed so many people and families who have gone through the quiet devastation caused not by a court of law but the lingering shadow of a document, the Certificate of Character. Recently, the LGSC recruited and we all know how many could not secure the job, not because they were not competent, not because it was related to the job but because their Certificate of Character showed that they had a criminal record. So, of course, I am not saying that justice must lose its seriousness. This is not what I am saying. I am saying that justice must not lose its humanity, and as the hon. Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out, a just society must know how to punish wrongdoing but it must also know when to build, to allow a human being to rebuild. This Bill to me, – congratulations to the hon. Attorney General – recognises that justice must evolve beyond punishment and embrace rehabilitation. It acknowledges that those who have shown genuine remorse, rebuilt their lives, served their sentence, deserved more than perpetual exclusion. They deserve a real opportunity to reintegrate into society. It is finally about ensuring that one mistake does not become a lifelong sentence. You would agree with me, Madam Speaker, that the human impact can be big. We have seen it in our Constituency recently, when people could not secure a job. I recall myself, hon. Uteem gave the example of possession of cannabis ruining people’s life for the purposes of consumption. You gave the example of a small larceny and I remember meeting a young guy in his early 30s who had been involved in a tragic accident. He was driving at the time; he deeply regrets what happened. There was no question of alcohol or intoxicating substance, to him, it was a moment of poor judgement that led to the tragic loss of life. That person was so traumatised by what happened, Madam Speaker, that he stopped driving altogether. When he met me, he was by now a dutiful son, a responsible husband, a devoted father but yet he explained to me how, because of what that one single document, his life was defined forever. He could not get a decent job and people misjudged him. This made me reflect, Madam Speaker, we have all been asking questions here. This made me reflect, how can we speak of rehabilitation if we deny reintegration? How can we as a society and even as legislators speak of reducing unemployment while quietly shutting the doors to people willing to work? This is why, I reiterate, I welcome the Bill’s expressed protection against discrimination in employment and for prospective employment. This is, to me one, of the most socially constructive parts of the Bill. Too often – the hon. Leader of the Opposition recognises this fact – too often, exclusion from work has been one of the greatest barriers to real reintegration and rehabilitation. And I think you will all agree with me, if we want safer communities, we must also want pathways back to lawful work and self-respect. A society that leaves no room for redemption should not be surprised when it struggles to achieve rehabilitation. I am not saying, of course, Madam Speaker – maybe people might misinterpret – that we should remove proper safeguards. They should be here and let us be clear, this Bill does not wipe away serious crimes. Serious crimes will still remain on the Certificate of Character through the First Schedule and the hon. Attorney General has stated what offenses will remain in the First Schedule and on the Certificate of Character. I am citing a few – • offenses involving children; • terrorism, and • major criminal code offenses. Such that it is clear, dangerous offenders will not benefit from this reform but for those who have committed lesser offenses, those who have reformed, rebuilt; this Bill gives them something profoundly important: a second chance and a genuine one. So, this Bill, Madam Speaker, reflects an important shift. It is a more proportionate approach distinguishing between seriousness and lesser offending. It distinguishes between risk and rehabilitation and it distinguishes between permanent danger and genuine reform. I have also gone through section 5 of the Bill which is the major central reform clause. I will not go through it again. Some may say this is leniency. It is not leniency. This is fairness. And I also welcome the section regarding young offenders. This is fair and forward looking, Madam Speaker, because we have to agree that youngsters do make mistakes but they also have the capacity to change. And if we want a balanced approach, that is the correct one, one that protects society while also investing in the potential of our youth. So, while support in principle, Madam Speaker, is good, I want to scrutinise the details. I only have one remark and I do not know if the hon. Attorney General will be able to consider that through the regulations. There is a broader point we have to reflect on; it is the efficiency of our system, Madam Speaker. So, this is why I will urge the hon. Attorney General through the regulations to impose a deadline within which the certificates will be issued following an application by a citizen because at the end of the day, Madam Speaker, when we say that a system that aspires to fairness should also aspire to timeliness. So, I will not be longer than that. I will sum up by saying that, while urging careful attention to safeguards in implementation, I support this Bill because to me, Madam Speaker, it reduces barriers to employment, it promotes social integration, family stability, reduces reoffending and ultimately creates a safer and more inclusive society. I cannot end without congratulating the hon. Attorney General and the Government for coming forward with this reform and as we say at the end of the day, a country is not judged only by how firmly it punishes and condemns wrong doings, Madam Speaker, but also by whether it leaves room for reform, responsibility and return. I commend the Bill to this House. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We are doing very well from the time point of view. Hon. Baboolall! (5.59 p.m.) Mr C. Baboolall (First Member for Montagne Blanche & GRSE): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to participate in the debate. Madam Speaker, the Certificate of Character Bill 2026 seeks to repeal and replace the longstanding Certificate of Character Act 2012. I thank the hon. Attorney General for bringing in the Bill. This is a way forward. Madam Speaker, at the outset, we acknowledge that updating outdated legislation is a necessary function of this House. The 2012 Act has served for over a decade. However, the current system has at times proven fragmented, inconsistent and vulnerable to delays and misuse. That said, this Bill goes beyond mere modernisation, it fundamentally reshapes how we treat individuals with criminal convictions in our society. Madam Speaker, in this Bill – as has already been enlightened by my learned friend barristers as well – clause 4 proposes non-discrimination in employment. Clause 5 which is one of the main clauses, subsection (1)(a) to (g) relates to Certificate of Character with no criminal record but the offenses should not fall under the First Schedule. Clause 6 is where the Certificate of Character will be issued with criminal record if none of the circumstances in clause 5 are applicable. There is also a consequential amendment by clause 12 in relation to the Equal Opportunities Act. Madam Speaker, the Certificate of Character is not merely an administrative document. For many citizens, it is a gateway to employment, education, travel, immigration and professional licensing. Under the previous law, all convictions could appear on the certificate, often creating permanent and disproportionate barriers, particularly for minor offenses. For many individuals, this document determines whether they are afforded a second chance. Madam Speaker, we support measures that enhance public trust and national security. Integrity in public life and employment is essential. However, legislation must strike a careful balance between safeguarding society and protecting fundamental rights. While we support this principle of the Bill, there remain some questions that merit clarification. Madam Speaker, our society believes in second chances. A person who has paid his or her debt to society should have a realistic opportunity to rebuild their life. Clause 5 introduces reforms aimed at reducing barriers to employment and social reintegration for individuals with minor convictions who have demonstrated good conduct. This reflects the principles of fairness, proportionality and rehabilitation. Madam Speaker, legislation must not only protect society, it must strengthen it and society is not strengthened by permanent exclusion but by responsible reintegration. The Bill does not clearly define an outline on how to rehabilitate people. Madam Speaker, clause 6 raises some concerns. If not carefully administered, the system risks creating what we may perceive as a way of perpetual punishment. A certificate regime that continues to heavily penalise individuals without adequate mechanisms for review, expungement or meaningful rehabilitation may ultimately increase recidivism rather than reducing it. Madam Speaker, the Bill also strengthens anti-discrimination protection by amending section 10 of the Equal Opportunities Act. Employers would be prohibited from refusing employment solely on the basis of a conviction unrelated to the job offered, provided there is no real risk to the employer’s operation or reputation. This is a progressive step but not without setbacks. Madam Speaker, public safety concerns must also be addressed. While easing restrictions on minor convictions promote reintegration, certain sectors, particularly financial institutions and positions requiring high level of trust may require greater transparency. The Bill is largely silent on how such sectors are to balance non-discrimination with legitimate risk assessment. This tension requires clearer legislative guidance to specific risk sectors. It is of utmost importance to discuss whether certain sectors like banking, child care and elderly care should have specialised access to full records as the current Bill’s general less intrigant approach might not account for the high level of trust required in these specific roles. Madam Speaker, balancing these rehabilitative goals with public safety and the concerns of employers draws a robust line of reasoning on the reputation against reintegration. Tensions are inherent in the Bill. The reputational risk loophole may emerge. This could allow employers to bypass the anti-discrimination intent of the Bill by claiming any past conviction, however minor, that harms their corporate image. Madam Speaker, another area requiring some clarifications concerns the prerogative mercy under Section 75 of the Constitution. Clause 5 recognises that a person who has been granted a free pardon may obtain a certificate without criminal record. However, some questions arise – • Can an individual apply immediately to the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy following sentencing without waiting for the lapse of the time required under clause 5? • Does clause 6 imply that a certificate with criminal records remains for life? Can a pardon not be granted in these circumstances? • Does it stop someone from applying to the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy? • If ever a free pardon is granted, where do we draw the line in relation to this Bill? How does this interact with the judicial review by the DPP? Madam Speaker, in De Boucherville Roger F P v State 2009 SCJ 5, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles established in Poongavanam v The Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy 1999 SCJ 396, holding that decisions of the Commission are amenable to judicial review where constitutional breaches occur. The court recognises the quasi-judicial nature the Commission’s functions and emphasises that its power must be exercised with rigour, integrity and honesty. Madam Speaker, given that the Commission may effectively alter court-imposed sentences, the safeguards surrounding its decisions are fundamental to preserving the separation of powers and public confidence in the justice system. There are growing discussions internationally about strengthening oversight mechanism over executive pardon powers to ensure appropriate checks and balances. This is a golden opportunity to address this issue as well because this Bill will directly or indirectly affect the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy. Madam Speaker, while the Bill allows for the omission of convictions involving up to three years of imprisonment, it requires a 10-year clean record. On the other hand, it can also be argued that decade is too long for someone trying to re-enter the work force immediately after serving the time, potentially leading to recidivism due to lack of opportunity if there is no rehabilitation programme. Madam Speaker, governance must evolve with a modernising nation. The Certificate of Character Bill 2026 reflects an effort to modernise our legal framework and protect civil liberties. Its objectives are commendable. However, clarity, safeguards and precision are necessary. Madam Speaker, we support the Bill in relation to ensure that the certificate of character system protects society, promotes responsible second chances and upholds the dignity and rights of all Mauritians, and for us to have a better criminal justice system. Madam Speaker, with those observations, I commend the Bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you. Hon. Babajee! (6.09 p.m.) Mr B. Babajee (First Member for Savanne & Black River): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, let me, first of all, thank the Attorney General for this commitment to introduce this Bill to this House. Before starting, let me remind everyone here that before 2006, there were no laws in regards to moral certificate. It is only this Prime Minister, hon. Navinchandra Ramgoolam, who brought the Certificate of Morality Act 2006. It is only after six years, 2012, again with the Labour Party, the Certificate of Character Act was introduced, repealing the other one. From 2014 to 2024, the previous government had 10 years to adjust and review all the defects, but nothing was done. As my colleague just said, hon. Reza Uteem, every time laws were being introduced, proposals and everything, but nothing was done. But today, the present Attorney General got the courage to bring it within two years in power. We need to thank him for this courageous decision. Madam Speaker, today, I give my full and unequivocal support to the Certificate of Character Bill, a piece of legislation that goes to the very heart of justice, fairness and human dignity in our republic. This debate invites us to reflect not only on law, but on the values that underpin our society: compassion, fairness, and the belief in human redemption. The proposed repeal of the Certificate of Character Act 2012 and its replacement with a more balanced and humane framework mark a decisive step towards restoring dignity and opportunity to those who have long been defined and confined by their past mistakes. For too long, a document intended to reflect a person’s character has instead function as a lifelong barrier. A single conviction, often for minor offence, has trailed individuals for years, if not decades, closing the door to employment, limiting access to education and obstructing meaningful reintegration into society. This Bill recognises a simple yet profound proof: people can change. Madam Speaker, under the new provisions, individuals who have committed minor offences or offences resulting in small fines or short-term imprisonment will no longer carry that burden indefinitely. After reasonable and just periods, such records will no longer appear on certain certificate of character. This is not about erasing wrongdoing. It is about recognising growth. It is about acknowledging rehabilitation. And above all, it is about granting second chances. We must, in particular, Madam Speaker, consider the impact on our youth. A mistake made before the age of 18 should not cast a shadow over an entire lifetime. Youth is a time of learning and sometimes of error, but ensuring that such mistakes do not permanently stain a young person’s future, we give them the opportunity to rebuild, to contribute and to succeed. Yet, Madam Speaker, what have we seen in the last 10 years, from 2014 to 2024? We got synthetic drugs coming in our society. We got all those youngsters consuming those synthetic drugs, getting caught with those drugs or getting caught with cannabis. This is the reason why he took this decision today to facilitate those people’s rehabilitation in our society. Under the abled leadership of our Prime Minister, this Government has demonstrated a clear commitment to build a fairer and more inclusive society. One that balances accountability with compassion and discipline with opportunity. Madam Speaker, one thing we need to ask is: is this justice like it is now, or is it a system that punishes not once, but repeatedly? We must confront an uncomfortable reality. When we deny individuals a fair opportunity to reintegrate, we do not merely punish them, we marginalise them. We risk pushing them towards despair, exclusion, and in some cases, towards the very path we seek to prevent. A young graduate denied employment despite merit may lose hope. A reformed individual, repeatedly rejected, may feel abandoned by the system, and in that void, the dangers of social evils, drug abuse, dependency or criminal influence become ever more real. As my neighbour just said, how many people were rejected for work at the LGSC? Just to collect refuse, some people were denied a job only because of their certificate of character. Madam Speaker, there are deeply troubling cases of students who during their formative years committed minor infractions. Today, they are educated, reformed and ready to contribute. Yet, they remain excluded because their Certificate of Character continues to reflect those past errors. This Bill represents a compassionate and principle shift in our legal framework. It affirms that justice must not end at punishment, it must extend to rehabilitation and reintegration. It is fundamentally unjust that individuals who have been granted a free pardon or who have been discharged, whether absolutely or conditionally should continue to suffer the consequences of those offences through administrative barriers. This Bill corrects that imbalance. Let me be clear. This reform does not weaken the rule of law, Madam Speaker, it strengthens it. Because true justice is not only firm, it is fair. It does not only punish but it also restores. Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Attorney-General for bringing forward this timely and necessary reform. It reflects a clear understanding of the lived realities of our citizens and a genuine commitment to building a more inclusive and equitable Mauritius. Behind every certificate, Madam Speaker, lies a human story, a story of error, yes, but also of growth, of effort and of determination to do better. Let us not allow the mistakes of the past to become permanent barriers to the future. Let us instead affirm through this Bill a principle that is both simple and powerful, that a person is more than their worse mistake. Let this House send a clear and unwavering message today – Mauritius believes in second chances. Mauritius believes in fairness and Mauritius believes in its people. Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this Bill. I commend it to the House.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Ramdass!

Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned.

Thank you. Mr Mohamed rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. Debate adjourned accordingly.

Hon. Prime Minister. ADJOURNMENT

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this Assembly do now adjourn to Tuesday 28 April 2026 at 11.30 a.m. Dr. Boolell rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

Thank you. The House stands adjourned! At 6.18 p.m. the Assembly was, on its rising, adjourned to Tuesday 28 April 2026 at 11.30 a.m. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS MAURITIUS’ SDDS+ STATUS UPGRADE – MEASURES & BENEFITS