Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will recall that two employees of ENSafrica (Mauritius) were suspended for failing to remove their headscarf. They were subsequently dismissed. The Employment Relations Tribunal found that the dismissal was unjustified, but did not order their reinstatement, because according to the Tribunal, the relationship between the employees and the employer had irremediably broken down. The two employees filed complaints with the Equal Opportunities Commission alleging that they had been subjected to discrimination by ENSafrica (Mauritius), via its preposé, based on their creed. In its report dated 08 May 2026, the Equal Opportunities Commission concluded amongst others that – (i) no condition, requirement or practice existed within ENSafrica (Mauritius) relating to secularity that was ever binding on the two employees; (ii) ENSafrica (Mauritius) did not address the accusation of the two employees that the employers allegedly used derogatory language to refer to the employees’ hijab, and (iii) the facts suggest that the two employees were subject to discrimination by ENSafrica (Mauritius). The Equal Opportunities Commission also emphasised that even where an expressed policy exists, regimenting employees’ dress code, any such policy must pass a test of constitutionality under Sections 11 and 16 of the Constitution, and they should also meet the threshold set under the Equal Opportunities Act, which prohibits discrimination based on creed. Pursuant to Section 33 (2) of the Equal Opportunities Act, the Equal Opportunities Commission provided the parties a statutory period of 45 days, from the day of submission of its report, to inform the Equal Opportunities Commission whether the complaints have been resolved. Where the complaints remain unresolved, the Equal Opportunities Commission shall, with the consent of the complainants, refer the complainants to the Equal Opportunities Tribunal. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, following the decision of the Equal Opportunities Commission on 10 May 2026, ENSafrica (Mauritius) issued a press communiqué informing, inter alia, that the termination of employment of the employees was not motivated by discriminatory practices, and that its employees could attend work in a dress code which conforms to their religious practice. It also stated that, in accordance with the EOC’s guidelines in its report, the conciliation process will restart with a view to achieve a satisfactory solution for all parties. This communiqué, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is contrary to the reply I made to Parliamentary Questions B/794 and B/810 at our Sitting of 29 July 2025. The House was informed that on 26 June 2025, the representative of ENSafrica (Mauritius) was convened to my Ministry, and he informed that there was a dress code which had been well-established in the past 30 years and that all employees of ENSafrica (Mauritius) had to officially adhere to same. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in July 2025 and November 2025, my Ministry submitted proposal to the Attorney General’s Office for amendments to Section 5 of the Workers’ Rights Act to prevent discrimination based on religious appearance or dress, which is required by or symbolic of a person’s religion or religious belief. The proposed amendment will also require an employer to make such adjustment to the condition or practice as may be reasonable and necessary to accommodate a worker’s religious appearance or dress unless the employer can demonstrate that making such adjustment would impose unjustifiable hardship. On 25 May 2026, yesterday, the Solicitor General's Office sent a reply to my office opining that, and I quote – “The existing legal framework appeared to be sufficient to cover dress code issues, provided they are interpreted and applied correctly by our court and tribunal.” As we only received that opinion yesterday, the matter is still under consideration. As far as ENSafrica (Mauritius) is concerned, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, should ENSafrica (Mauritius) fail to reach an amicable settlement with the two employees within the 45 days given to them by the Equal Opportunities Commission, I will ask the hon. Attorney General to consider revoking the license of ENSafrica (Mauritius) under the Law Practitioners Act on the ground of public interest because, in my opinion, a law firm which engages in discriminatory practices should not be allowed to practice in Mauritius.

Yes, hon. Lobine.

Yes, thank you, hon. Minister for this reply. In the meantime, will the hon. Minister consider issuing a guideline or a notice to all employers that they should make it mandatory at their workplace to have written non-discrimination and dress code policies that are in line with our Constitution - written guidelines?

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will give the instruction to my officers to liaise with the different employers of organisations to make sure that they have this non- discrimination policy in written form which is circulated to all employees. BASSIN D'APPRENTISSAGE – 2019 TO 2025 – TOTAL COSTS - CONTRACTOR