Second Reading THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW COMMISSION BILL (NO. VI OF 2026) Order for Second Reading read. (5.21 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I move that the Constitutional Review Commission Bill (No. VI of 2026) be read a second time. Madam Speaker, the Bill we are presenting today is not an ordinary Bill. It concerns the supreme law of the land, the very constitutional architecture upon which our democracy, our institutions and the rights of our citizens rest. For decades, Mauritians have been proud of the democratic traditions of this country. We have been often cited as an example of constitutional stability, institutional continuity, and the respect for the rule of law. But, Madam Speaker, recent years have also exposed vulnerabilities in our constitutional framework, which can no longer be ignored. Madam Speaker, a Constitution cannot remain frozen in time while society is evolving around it. The Constitution is a living instrument, and like any living thing, it is as capable of being exploited as it is of offering protection. History has shown us, with painful clarity, that a Constitution alone does not save democracy. What saves democracy is the strength of its institutions and civil society, the independence of its judiciary, the freedom and independence of the press, the vigilance of its citizens in defence of their democratic rights, and the safeguards that prevent any single individual or family, or political clique from subverting all of them. A Constitution must not only reflect the realities of the present, but it must also protect the future of the nation. It must be sufficiently robust to withstand the abuses of power, sufficiently modern to protect emerging rights, and sufficiently democratic to ensure that no government, no institution, no individual may place themselves above constitutional accountability. This Government was elected, Madam Speaker, in November 2024 on a clear mandate to restore confidence in our institutions, reinforce democracy, strengthen the rule of law, and modernise the constitutional framework of Mauritius. The Constitutional Review Commission gives concrete effect to that commitment contained in the Government Programme of 2025-2029. By this Bill, we take an important step to fulfil an electoral promise. Madam Speaker, we are not today amending the Constitution itself. We are establishing an independent – and it needs to be highlighted –, an independent Constitutional Review Commission, which will undertake wide consultations, examine constitutional reforms and make recommendations to the President and therefore to the Government. The Commission will have the responsibility to hear all views, engage with experts, civil society, institutions, political parties, the legal profession, academics, and citizens from all walks of life. Constitutional reform, Madam Speaker, cannot and should not be the monopoly of politicians alone. It concerns the entire nation. This Bill we present establishes this Commission, sets out its composition, its mandate, its independence, and its process. Let me now address the substance of what this Commission will examine and why each area demands urgent attention. Madam Speaker, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises freedom of information as a fundamental human right. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has stated that access to information is one of the most essential elements of the freedom of speech. Let me quote. He says – "Freedom will be bereft of all effectiveness if the people have no access to information. Access to information is basic to the democratic way of life. The tendency to withhold information from the people at large is therefore to be strongly checked." Transparency is not merely a governance ideal – it is the oxygen of democracy, Madam Speaker. When government decisions on public procurement, on appointments, on contracts, and concessions are shrouded in official secrecy, corruption may flourish in the darkness. The people of this country have had enough darkness in the governance of our nation. Furthermore, when the media does not have access to information, very often they speculate, and very often wrongly, and false perceptions are created, especially on the social media. Lies propagate. People very often believe what they see on social media; they do not use their head, unfortunately, and false perceptions are created. This is not conducive to the proper functioning of a democracy. A Freedom of Information Act will be introduced by this Government and the Commission will examine the constitutional principle underpinning it. Sunshine, Madam Speaker, is the best disinfectant. This country has been kept in the dark for far too long. Secondly, Madam Speaker, the Commission will examine the creation of a Senior Official's Appointment Committee, which will make recommendations to Government on the appointment of heads of major public institutions, other than appointments already falling under the service commissions provided for in the Constitution. We witnessed, Madam Speaker, under the previous regime, the devastating consequences when the heads of supposedly independent institutions owed their position not to merit, not to competence or integrity but to political servility and personal loyalty to the ruling clique. The result was institutional decay on an alarming scale. The Police Force was too often reduced to a political instrument deployed against critics and opponents. The Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation ceased to function as a national broadcaster and became instead a taxpayer-funded propaganda machine for those in power. The former Independent Commission Against Corruption, established supposedly to fight corruption, was rendered a toothless watchdog, energetic when pursuing political adversaries, but conspicuously paralysed when confronted with allegations touching the corridors of power. The Financial Crimes Commission set up under the Financial Crimes Commission Act made matters worse. It concentrated the critical powers of investigation in the hands of the hand-picked Director General and removed the constitutional prerogative of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As soon as we came into government, we initiated an amendment to restore the prosecutorial authority of the DPP. Madam Speaker, institutions do not just collapse overnight. They are hollowed out gradually, little by little, when appointments are made on the basis of political obedience rather than public service. And once public confidence is lost, the damage extends far beyond any one government. It strikes at the very legitimacy and effectiveness of the State itself. Confidence in our institutions depends not only on personal integrity of those appointed but equally on credibility, transparency, and independence of the process by which they are appointed. A democracy cannot function where citizens believe that key constitutional and public bodies are merely extensions of the governing party. That is why reforming the system of appointments is not cosmetic reform; it is democratic repair. The objective is, therefore, to reinforce merit, transparency, competence, and institutional credibility in appointments to key public offices. Of course, in organisations that are central to the implementation of a government's programme, it may sometimes be permissible for political considerations to play a part, but competence must always be the primary consideration. I do not pretend, Madam Speaker, that we have always got it right, but we must correct what can be corrected. We must change the culture. Unless our nation can rise above the tribal divisions that afflict us, we cannot build the sound foundations for a future in which the youthful generations of our country can have confidence. Madam Speaker, the Commission will also consider constitutional provisions for the mandatory holding of local government elections at statutory intervals. The successive postponement of municipal elections, not once, not twice, three times, if I am not mistaken, was one of the most brazen exercises of institutional manipulation witnessed in this country's modern democratic history. Local elections represent a fundamental democratic right. They are not a convenience to be scheduled when a government feels it might win or deferred when it fears it might lose. It is an essential component of our democratic governance. Citizens must have the constitutional guarantee that local authorities remain accountable to their electorate through regular elections. The Commission will examine the mandatory constitutional entrenchment of local government elections at fixed statutory intervals, removing forever any government's ability to weaponise delaying elections as a political strategy. Madam Speaker, since the beginning of this Government's mandate, with the participation of the Attorney General's Office, we have brought about a series of significant reforms to our laws in order to make justice more accessible, more efficient, and more responsive to the lived realities of our citizens. The Commission will therefore be asked to examine further constitutional and judicial reforms that will align with this commitment. Madam Speaker, if there is but a whiff of the perception of bias, there cannot be justice as the people must be confident that the system is not and cannot be biased. Today, our current system permits judges who sit at first instance to sit on appeal. So, today, for example, a judgement may be on appeal before two judges, and tomorrow, the judge whose judgement was on appeal, sits on appeal on a judgement at first instance handed down by his or her colleague. This is unacceptable. The perception that this may give rise to bias, undermines public confidence in the impartiality of our courts. Justice, Madam Speaker, must not only be independent but must be scrupulously impartial. The Commission will therefore examine the creation of a new Court of Appeal, within the Supreme Court, consisting of dedicated judges of appeal as recommended by Lord Mackay. Judges at first instance will adjudicate; judges of appeal will review. This would reinforce appropriate judicial specialisation, improve efficiency, and strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice. The right of the final recourse to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will, of course, be maintained. This is therefore a critically important institutional reform. The Commission, Madam Speaker, will also examine the establishment of a Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court for the timely adjudication of constitutional and human rights matters. Constitutional litigation often concerns the most fundamental rights and freedom of citizens. Delays in constitutional matters may effectively amount to a denial of justice. A specialised Constitutional Division will ensure greater expertise, coherence and expedition in constitutional adjudication. It would strengthen constitutional protection and reaffirm the supremacy of the Constitution in our legal order. A good example, Madam Speaker, - and I think all of us know this - concerns electoral petitions. We have to prepare the affidavits and put in our petitions within 21 days. It is not easy when you have lost an election because people who were prepared to come are put under pressure or threatened in this country, but you have only 21 days to prepare your petition. But we all know what happened after the 2019 elections. I am an example myself. Four and a half years practically waiting for the petition to be heard, but finally we said there is no point because elections are held every five years. So, what is the point of having electoral petitions? The Commission will also look into whether there is need to reinforce further the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The independent prosecutorial function of the Director of Public Prosecutions is a cornerstone of the rule of law. That is why in the Constitution, he is given constitutional protection. If prosecutions are selectively initiated or dropped based on political considerations, and if the Director of Public Prosecutions is perceived as vulnerable to executive influence, the entire edifice of the criminal justice becomes an instrument of executive power rather than that of justice. I may say, thankfully, we have been fortunate that the recent occupants of that office have had the moral courage and fortitude to resist the most flagitious and brazen attempts to coerce and intimidate them. Madam Speaker, who can forget the astonishing spectacle, widely reported not only here but around the world, of a sitting DPP, his house being surrounded by compliant police officers on the orders of two political Ministers and with the approval of the then Prime Minister, forced to seek an order for habeas corpus to prevent his arrest on trumped-up charges? He had to go by the back door, run away. Who can forget the campaign of steady, attritional executive harassment and coercion exercised against him and his successor right up to the elections, 18 short months ago, to capture the institution of the DPP and bend it to its will? A campaign, which I must say, to the lasting credit of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Xavier-Luc Duval, who decided to resign, who preferred to resign from government rather than accepting such a repugnant and proposed action. He resigned. That, Madam Speaker, was a testimony to their character, the former DPP's, but it does not mean the system is incapable of improvement, to better protect the prosecutorial independence and impartiality of the DPP's office. The Commission, therefore, will examine whether further constitutional reinforcement of the DPP's independence is necessary, including protections against political interference in prosecution decisions and clearer constitutional delineation of the DPP's exclusive prosecutorial authority. As alluded to earlier, the Government has already moved to amend the Financial Crimes Commission Act to remove the power of its Director General to prosecute or decline to prosecute without the DPP's consent. He cannot do it without the DPP's consent anymore. The Commission will consider whether there is need to further constitutional underpinning to buttress the independence of the DPP. Madam Speaker, on another note, the Commission will examine amendments to Chapter II of the Constitution to further protect fundamental rights, including new generation rights relating to environment, technology, health, education, and other economic, social and cultural rights recognised under international treaties, and to provide for the rights of nature. Chapter II of our Constitution, which is our Bill of Rights in a way, was drafted in 1968. It was after the constitutional conference of 1965. It was, for its time, a remarkable document and has served us well. At the time our founding document was written, the internet did not exist. The climate crisis was not yet understood as an existential emergency. Artificial intelligence was science fiction. And yet, today, we are asking a 1968 document to protect citizens whose rights are being violated – - through digital surveillance, - through environmental destruction, and - through the denial of adequate health care and education. The Commission will examine how to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights and enshrine what we call new generation rights: the right to a clean environment, the right to health, the right to education as constitutional guarantees, rights recognised under international treaties to which Mauritius is already a party. The Bill also provides for the Commission to examine the rights of nature, a concept that has gained momentum in constitutional jurisprudence from Ecuador to New Zealand, and to which this Government committed in its Programme. If we are serious about climate justice and ecological sustainability, we must be prepared to enshrine it at the highest level of our legal order while paying due regard to practicalities. Madam Speaker, the Commission will also be mandated to examine the introduction of public interest litigation and class actions to better safeguard public interest and better protect citizen rights. Our Supreme Court has consistently held that Mauritius does not recognise representative standing, that only those with direct personal interest, who have locus standi, may bring constitutional proceedings. The consequences of this restrictive position are profound. Communities devastated by pollution, for example, cannot sue without proving individual harm. Environmental NGOs cannot challenge destructive government decisions. Marginalised groups, lacking the resources to litigate individually, find the courts effectively closed to them. In India, South Africa, and the United States, these tools have enabled courts to move beyond narrow adversarial disputes and to address systemic wrongs affecting large sections of society. There is a landmark judgement, Madam Speaker, the Taj Trapezium case. In that judgement, the Supreme Court of India used Public Interest Litigation to compel the State to take action to protect the Taj Mahal and the surrounding communities from the devastating effects of industrial pollution. It demonstrates how judicial intervention can safeguard both heritage and public health. Similarly, in the case of the Government of the Republic of South Africa against Grootboom, the Constitutional Court affirmed that constitutional rights are not abstract promises, but enforceable entitlements, holding the State accountable for its obligations to provide adequate housing to those living in inhumane conditions. These experiences demonstrate that where traditional mechanisms of litigation may be insufficient, for the various reasons I gave, to address diffuse or collective harm, Public Interest Litigation and Class Actions can serve as vital instruments of accountability, ensuring that the justice system remains accessible not only to the privileged few, but to society at large. Madam Speaker, after careful deliberation, I will bring an amendment at Committee Stage of the Bill to extend the mandate of the Commission. The Commission will be empowered to examine the introduction of an Electoral College for the election of the President of the Republic, with a view to strengthening democratic governance by providing for a more deliberate and representative mechanism for the selection of the Head of State rather than a direct nationwide popular vote. Such an electoral college might enable a specific caucus, whether of elected representatives or of delegates to reflect the diversity of regional, institutional and sectoral interests within the Republic, thereby ensuring a more balanced and inclusive process. It might further serve to mitigate the risks of excessive polarisation and personality-driven electoral competition by encouraging the emergence of persons who command broad national consensus rather than narrow majoritarian support. In a society characterised by diversity, this mechanism might enhance political stability, reinforce the legitimacy of the Office of the President, and strengthen public confidence in the neutrality and unifying role of the Presidency as an institution which should be standing above partisan politics. I shall await the Commission's views with keen interest. Madam Speaker, the integrity of our electoral system is the foundation of everything. An election that is not free, that is not fair, that is not credible, is not an election at all. It is a performance of democracy dressed in democratic costume. The Commission will, therefore, examine a comprehensive package of electoral reforms: stronger powers and independence for the Electoral Commissioner and the Electoral Supervisory Commission; faster access to justice in electoral disputes, as I mentioned; the introduction of a proportional element in our electoral system to reflect more closely the will of the people. As the highly respected journalist, Mr Yvan Martial, said recently in an interview in L'Express of 20 May of this year, and I quote – "Quand un système électoral donne tous les votes à un seul parti et zéro siège à l’Opposition, c’est une forme de dictature." This is, I should say, the unintended consequences of our electoral system. Nobody at the time thought that an alliance could sweep all the seats! This was not even envisaged, and it has already occurred. Not once, not twice; three times again! The last one being the general election of 2024. The parti de l’Alliance Nationale, led by the Labour Party with its friends of the CAM and all this, in spite of having got 25.7% of the vote in 1982, was not represented in Parliament, that is, 25.7% of the people's voice were ignored, stifled. I remember vividly, Madam Speaker, – I am sure many of the young MPs do not even know this – The London Times, in 1982, after the election. There was a headline, and this is what the headline said – “Unique in the world – Democracy opts for one party State.” Never happened! People want democracy. Here, we opted for a one-party State. This is never good for a democracy. You need an effective Opposition, comme chien de garde in any democracy. Otherwise, it does not work. Furthermore, the regulation of political party electoral funding and the right of constituents to recall their members for serious misconduct should also be considered. Madam Speaker, the Commission will be charged with examining the introduction of anti-defection provisions for Members of the National Assembly, a provision necessary to protect the integrity of Parliament and the mandate given by voters. It seeks to prevent elected Members of Parliament from opportunistically changing political allegiance after elections in exchange for personal benefit or ministerial office or political favour. Such practices arguably undermine political stability, weaken public trust in democratic institutions and distort the will of the electorate. An anti-defection framework could promote accountability and ensure that governments are formed and maintained on the basis of principles and electoral legitimacy rather than political bargaining and inducements. Very often, financial inducements as well! The Commission will have, therefore, to examine how best, because they must balance the freedom of conscience of Members of the Parliament with respect to the democratic mandate entrusted by voters. Madam Speaker, our national anthem calls upon us to honour the values of peace, justice and liberty – values we pledge at every gathering of the Nation. This is not just poetry. They are foundational principles upon which the Republic rests. Peace, justice and liberty are constitutional values which must guide our institutions, public institutions, democratic governance and national life. Constitutional recognition of these principles would reaffirm the moral and democratic identity of the Mauritian Republic. The Commission will, therefore, examine how to enshrine these fundamental foundational values constitutionally, not as mere aspirations, but as justifiable standards by which the conduct of all public authority may be measured. Madam Speaker, finally, the Commission will also consider any associated matters which it may think relevant in the line of the objects of the Bill. This flexibility is important because constitutional review cannot always be confined within strict, rigid parameters. During consultations, additional concerns, proposals and constitutional issues may well emerge, which deserve consideration. Madam Speaker, the Commission will operate with the full independence guaranteed by clause 4(2) of the Bill, free from the direction or control of any person or authority. It will conduct public sittings, invite written submissions from every citizen, whoever, political parties, associations, engage with experts both domestic and foreign, and deliberate in a structured, transparent process before presenting its findings to the President. Every Mauritian, including Rodriguans, people from Agalega, from Saint Brandon, and very soon from Diego Garcia, who wish to be heard will have the opportunity to be heard. This is participatory and consultative constitutional reform. It will be the people's Constitution. Commissioners and all persons assisting the Commission will be protected by immunity from legal proceedings for acts done in good faith. This is a Commission built for candour, for rigour, and for courage. Madam Speaker, the philosopher Aristotle wrote that the purpose of the Constitution is to organise the city in the manner most conducive to good governance. Our Constitution was written from a different era. More than 50 years – nearly 60, actually – have passed. We have grown as a Nation, as a People, as a Democracy. It is time that our supreme text grew with us. Madam Speaker, De Gaulle who was a former President of the French Republic, was asked about this, and he said, I am quoting – « Des Grecs, jadis, demandaient au sage Solon : ‘Quelle est la meilleure Constitution ?' Et il répondit : ‘Dites-moi d'abord pour quel peuple et à quelle époque’. » This exercise is not academic; it is urgent. Every mechanism we have described and on which we invite the Commission to reflect and report: stronger fundamental rights, protected privacy, an independent and impartial judiciary – not just independent, they have to be impartial – a reformed electoral system, public interest litigation, freedom of information, and every one of these themes is a direct and deliberate response to the documented failures of the decades between 2014 and 2024. Madam Speaker, we are not drafting hypothetical safeguards against hypothetical abuses. We are giving the mandate to the Commission to come up with real and effectual shields against the very real violations that this country has suffered. Mauritius was Africa's beacon for democracy, but we slided. You just have to look at V-Democracy reports, which said we were a democracy. We have slided into an autocracy. They have just had a report which said we are back as a democratic country. November 2024 was the moment Mauritian people arose to reclaim that distinction. The Bill forms part of the rebuilding of the democratic architecture that will make such a reclamation permanent. Everything this Government does will focus relentlessly on building the solid foundations of the bridge to a new and better future for our country. Every decision I take, and the Government takes, must be deliberately and painstakingly calculated to restore the moral, democratic and economic health of our nation. This Bill, Madam Speaker, is part of the building of the foundations of the Bridge to the Future. This Bill represents an act and an expression of political and constitutional faith in that future. The magnificent people of our Republic deserve so much better. And this time, we are going to make sure that they get it. The Government Programme presented to this nation in January 2025 made a promise. Today, we are delivering on that promise. We are establishing the Commission this country needs, to undertake the constitutional review the country deserves. Let Mauritius never again become what it was between 2014 and 2024. Let this Bill be the beginning of the guarantee that it will never be again the same. I, therefore, invite, Madam Speaker, all the hon. Members of this House to support the Constitutional Review Commission Bill and to participate constructively in what may become one of the most important democratic exercises in the constitutional history of our Republic. With these words, Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded.

Yes. Motion is seconded. Now I call on the hon. Leader of the Opposition. (5.58 p.m.)

Merci, Madame la présidente. Merci de me donner la parole cet après-midi afin d'apporter mon humble contribution sur le Constitutional Review Commission Bill (No. VI of 2026). Avec ce projet de loi, cette auguste Assemblée pose, aujourd'hui, les jalons des futurs amendements qui seront apportés à notre Constitution. Malheureusement, Madame la présidente, la présentation, aujourd'hui, de ce projet de loi est à l'image de ce Gouvernement. À l'envers ou comme on dit enba lao – un projet de loi qui est contradictoire. Et je vais expliquer pourquoi, Madame la présidente. Dans un état de droit, le cadre juridique doit précéder les nominations et non les suivre. Le 24 juin de l'année dernière, c'est-à-dire presqu'une année de cela, l’honorable l'Attorney General a affirmé à cette auguste Assemblée, et je cite – "At the same time, a Constitutional Review Commission is expected to commence its work in the coming weeks." This is what he said, Madam Speaker, "in the coming weeks." Et cela a pris une année. Et une année, Madame la présidente, vous avez l'admettre, ce n’est pas quelques semaines à venir. Et lorsqu'un gouvernement bafoue une promesse démocratique phare, les citoyens sont en droit de se demander : cette réforme est-elle dictée par des principes ou par un calendrier politique ? Et, nous savons tous que cet empressement à présenter ce projet de loi est principalement pour retenir les papillons et les empêcher de voler de leurs propres ailes vers d'autres cieux politiques, Madame la présidente. L’honorable l'Attorney General poursuivait ainsi – “It will allow for a principle and inclusive review of our Constitution with a view to strengthening checks and balances and reinforcing public trust from electoral reform to a new generation of rights drafted by Mauritians, for Mauritians and passed by a Parliament with a clear mandate to do so.” J'ai écouté avec beaucoup d'attention l'honorable Premier ministre faisant référence à la réforme électorale. C'est vrai qu'il a dit dans son intervention que la commission "will look also into associated matters." Mais permettez-moi de me référer à la section 4 (r). Et la section 4 (r) fait mention de l'intégrité électorale, de l'équité et de la transparence du processus électoral. Ce qu'on comprend que ça englobe aussi la réforme électorale comme avait promis le gouvernement, Madame la présidente. Or ce que je vois, par exemple, la réforme fait clairement mention du financement des partis politiques. Et il faut se rappeler, Madame la présidente, qu'un projet de loi avait été présenté à cette Chambre en juillet 2019. Mais ceux qui aujourd'hui sont au gouvernement, autrefois dans l'opposition, avaient voté contre. Madame la présidente, permettez-moi de faire référence au Government Programme. Je cite, et c'est la première mesure concernant la Commission constitutionnelle where it was stated that the Commission will inter alia examine the setting up of an electoral college which will elect the President of the Republic with a view to ensuring that the President has a mandate for a broader base. Et ce n'est que ce matin, Madame la présidente, qu'on a circulé un amendement afin d'ajouter cet item dans les attributions de la commission. Est-ce un oubli ? Mais par contre, voilà ce que dit cet amendement, c'est-à-dire d'ajouter à la clause 4(g), the creation of an electoral college to elect the President of the Republic in order to increase the legitimacy. Fait référence avant, c'est-à-dire the broader base, mais aussi on a ajouté cette fois-ci an independence of the office qui n'était pas dans le discours programme. Doit-on par cet ajout, Madame la présidente, comprendre que quelqu'un au sein du gouvernement a l'ambition de devenir président de la République avec les pleins pouvoirs ?

(Interruptions)

Comme je disais, Madame la présidente, un projet de loi présenté à l'envers. Le 19 décembre 2025, the highlights des décisions du Conseil des Ministres, et je me réfère au paragraphe numéro 4, et je cite – “Cabinet has taken note that former Chief Justice Y. K. J. Bernard Yeung Sik Yuen, GOSK has been designated as Chairperson of the Constitutional Review Commission.” Et lors des délibérations du Conseil des Ministres du 30 janvier 2026, la population est informée, Madame la présidente, que les membres de la commission sont nommés. Et depuis, c'est le silence complet jusqu'à la présentation de ce projet de loi. Donc, le Conseil des Ministres décide de la nomination du président et des membres de cette commission et cinq mois après, ce gouvernement vient présenter un projet de loi qui a pour objectif, Madame la présidente, comme énoncé à la première phrase de l'Explanatory Memorandum, et je cite – “…to empower His Excellency the President of the Republic of Mauritius to appoint a Constitutional Review Commission.” Madame la présidente, le gouvernement avait déjà décidé légalement et officiellement ces nominations puisque la décision a été prise par le Conseil des Ministres. Et maintenant, vous allez demander au président de la République de nommer les membres de la commission et cela à travers une loi. Madame la présidente, dans la pratique, dans les pays du Commonwealth, comme par exemple, je vais citer le Kenya ou le Canada, les commissions statutaires sont d'abord créées par la loi et les nominations suivent. Inverser cet ordre, Madame la présidente, porte atteinte à la souveraineté parlementaire et crée un déficit de légitimité dès le premier jour. Et si le gouvernement, Madame la présidente, persiste avec ces nominations pré-annoncées, je demanderai à ce moment-là au gouvernement d'inclure une clause de ratification exigeant l'aval de cette auguste Assemblée. Pour continuer dans la même veine, Madame la présidente, en vertu de l'article 47 de notre Constitution, les nominations clés requièrent la consultation du Leader de l'Opposition. Ce projet de loi malheureusement rompt avec cette tradition pour une instance qui va pourtant refondre notre loi fondamentale. Ce n'est pas un simple oubli. C'est un recul démocratique. Et je pense, Madame la présidente, tout sincèrement, du fait que cela concerne la révision de notre Constitution, non seulement il faut consulter le Leader de l'Opposition, il faut aussi consulter les leaders des partis politiques, du moins ceux qui siègent au Parlement. Madame la présidente, à travers ce projet de loi, ce gouvernement démontre ses propres contradictions et je vais vous expliquer pourquoi. La section 4(1) qui définit les functions and powers of Commission, par cette section du projet de loi, le gouvernement définit les sujets que la commission doit prendre en considération. It states that the Commission shall inter alia examine the following. Et le Premier ministre, lors de son intervention, a fait référence à l'indépendance de la commission, que la commission will look into associated matters. Ainsi donc, Madame la Présidente, à la section 4(1), le gouvernement impose, je dis bien impose, les changements constitutionnels qu'il voudrait faire et ensuite, on vient dire que la commission va agir indépendamment sans contrainte d'une autorité. Madame la présidente, ce n'est pas seulement contradictoire, c'est constitutionnellement vicié. Une instance ne peut pas, à la fois, avoir pour mandat, d'examiner une liste prédéfinie et être véritablement indépendante. La véritable indépendance exige, Madame la présidente, la liberté d'identifier les enjeux issus des consultations publiques et non de simplement exécuter l'agenda de l'exécutif. Madame la présidente, la rédaction de notre Constitution a été faite à travers des consultations avec tous les partis politiques. Mais 58 ans plus tard, le Parti Travailliste et les autres imposent déjà ces changements à la Commission constitutionnelle. Et je précise, imposer puisque cette loi va être votée et la commission devra s'y soumettre. Madame la présidente, il y a des dysfonctionnements graves au plus haut sommet de l'État. Et la chronologie de la présentation de ce projet de loi est un autre exemple. Dysfonctionnement entre l'administration publique et l'exécutif, des décisions qui sont prises à peu près et cela va aller en s'empirant, Madame la présidente. La nomination du président et des membres de la commission par le Conseil des Ministres démontre un certain amateurisme. Et c'était le cas aussi si je peux rappeler à la Chambre, le 16 mai 2025. Toujours, après les délibérations du Conseil des ministres, une des décisions prises, ce jour- là, était la nomination de Monsieur Axcel Chenney comme le Chief Executive Officer de la NEF. Quelques semaines plus tard, le ministre concerné, le « Père Papillon », l'honorable Subron, à une PNQ, affirme ceci – “As for Mr Axcel Chenney, I proposed that he be nominated by the coming Board as CEO. When the Cabinet analysed this nomination, the Cabinet was of the opinion that ‘we cannot proceed with the nomination.’ So, we let the new Board sit and make proposals. Then, we will discuss.” Ainsi, les délibérations du Conseil des ministres rendues publiques mentionnent la nomination de Monsieur Axcel Chenney, mais le ministre vient ensuite dire que le Conseil cannot proceed with the nomination. J'ai cité cet exemple parce qu'il démontre parfaitement cette tendance. Lorsque des décisions du Conseil des ministres sont annoncées, puis retirées, puis réannoncées, la confiance du public s'effrite et la réforme constitutionnelle exige des normes bien plus élevées de cohérence et de transparence. Je l'ai dit plus haut et je le redis, Madame la présidente. Je suis contre le fait que le gouvernement et les partis de l'alliance gouvernementale imposent les propositions dans ce projet de loi à la commission qui va être mise sur pied. Alors, permettez-moi, Madame la présidente, de faire référence à la section 7 (1) (a) de ce projet de loi où il est écrit ceci, et je cite – “(a) a preliminary consultation and exploration stage, whereby citizens and group of citizens, including political parties and associations, shall be invited to submit their ideas and suggestions (…).” Madame la présidente, cette section fait mention de preliminary consultation. Doit-on conclure que la société civile et les partis politiques ne pourront faire uniquement des propositions qu'au début des travaux de la Commission et non pas après ? J'aimerais bien savoir, Madame la présidente. Madam Speaker, let me come to some other clauses of the Bill. I made reference earlier to Clause 7. Let me come back again to Clause 7 with regard to the consultation process. Madam Speaker, Section 7 (1) outlines a four-stage process, which is good, but it lacks safeguards – • no timeline; • no requirement to publish submissions; • no obligation to explain how public’s input shape recommendations. With regard to that section, Madam Speaker, I propose that all non-confidential submissions should be published on dedicated portal in langaz Kreol Morisien, in French and in English. With regard to Sections 7 and 9 of the Bill, which deal with proceedings of Commission and deposit of records, I propose that another clause be added for the report and the interim report – if ever there is one – to be submitted to the Clerk of the National Assembly. At Clause 9, concerning the deposits of records, also, I propose that the Law Reform Commission be deleted and replaced by the Clerk of the National Assembly. Parce qu'on est en droit de savoir. C'est vrai qu'on peut aller to the Law Reform Commission, but not everybody knows where it is, Madam Speaker. Let me refer to Clause 15 which deals with blanket immunity. This is a standard clause, Madam Speaker, but it must be limited to good faith. I propose that immunity under this section shall not apply to acts done in bad faith with gross negligence or in breach of the rules of natural justice. Madame la présidente, une Constitution n'est pas un document pour des salles fermées, comme l'a si bien dit l'honorable Premier ministre dans son intervention. Elle appartient au pêcheur de la région de Grand Gaube, au planteur de Vacoas, à l'enseignant de Port Louis, au jeune entrepreneur de Rose Hill, à l'aîné de Rodrigues, à l'infirmier d'Agaléga. Ce projet de loi est un début. Mais un début doit être bien fait. Je ne m’oppose pas à la révision constitutionnelle. Je m'oppose à un processus qui commence à l'envers, qui impose un agenda au lieu d'écouter le peuple et qui nomme des commissaires avant que la loi n'existe. Madame la présidente, cette commission doit être un forum national et non pas un instrument exécutif ; et que la révision constitutionnelle soit digne de notre démocratie, Madame la présidente. Je vous remercie.

Je vous en prie. Yes, hon. Minister of Labour! (6.21 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, let me, first of all, thank the hon. Prime Minister for bringing this historical Bill in Parliament. One of the main reasons behind the formation of l'Alliance du Changement was, precisely, to implement the constitutional reforms that was set out in our electoral agreement between our four parties, and reflected in the Presidential Address of the Government Programme 2025-2029. I still remember meeting hon. Subron and other members of Rezistans ek Alternativ back in November 2022, when we were discussing constitutional reforms. In those days, there was the question of having a transition government of national unity for the purpose of adopting a new Constitution. May I say, Madam Speaker, the MMM was fully aligned with the proposals of Rezistans ek Alternativ. I am glad that these informal meetings ended up into an electoral alliance. Madam Speaker, when we look at the Constitution of Mauritius, when we open the Constitution, there is one thing that immediately strikes us. Our Constitution was never voted in Mauritius. It never originated in Mauritius. It was not an ordinary Act of Parliament presented, debated and voted in Mauritius. Rather, it was attached as a Schedule to the Mauritius Independence Order 1968. A British Order in Council issued under the Mauritius Independent Act 1968 adopted by the British Parliament. This historical context is important because, although undoubtedly, the Constitution emerged from negotiations involving Mauritius’ political leaders at the time, the final constitutional instrument itself was ultimately promulgated under British legal authority and within the framework of British colonial constitutional arrangement. This is why, Madam Speaker, this Bill is historical because once this independent Commission, the Constitutional Review Commission, will provide its draft legislation. For the first time in Mauritius, we will have the chance to adopt a Constitution by Mauritians for Mauritians. And although many governments amended the Constitution over the years, including the MSM, including government which had three-quarter majority, which could have made fundamental changes.

You mean four quarters majority?

Three quarters.

I am saying four quarters.

Yes, I mean that they had the minimum to amend the Constitution. They had that majority. They never previously undertook a comprehensive constitutional review to adapt the Constitution to the realities and challenges of modern society. So, this is why, Madam Speaker, I am buzzled when I hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition criticising us for doing what he, his party never, never had the decency to do.

Exactement!

And what are we doing? We are just doing what we have already said in our electoral agreement and which is already in paragraph 6 to 9 of our Government Programme. So, there are no surprises here. We do not need to have a never-ending mandate given to that Committee as suggested by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. We already know what are the areas that we want this independent Constitutional Review Committee to look at and come up with propositions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition talks about contradiction. He takes strong exception to the fact that as far back as 19 December 2025, Cabinet had decided that former Chief Justice Bernard Yeung Sik Yuen would head this Constitutional Committee and the members of the Committee were nominated, were approved by Cabinet later on. So, according to him, it should have been done after the Act had been passed and it should have been done by the President. And according to him, by doing the way we are doing, we are 'en balao'. But Madam Speaker, I think, the hon. Leader of the Opposition does not even know the Constitution. And when we are dealing with a Bill that is setting up a Committee to review the Constitution, the least we would have expected from the hon. Leader of the Opposition is to read his Constitution before coming and addressing this House. Had he done so, he would have seen, Madam Speaker, Section 64 of the Constitution, and I read - "In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other law, the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet except in cases where he is required by this Constitution to act in accordance with the advice of, or after consultation with, any person or authority other than the Cabinet or in his own deliberate judgment.'' So, the Constitution does not have any provision today requiring the President to act on his own deliberate judgment to set up this Review Committee. So, the Constitution requires the President to act on the advice of Cabinet. So what is 'en balao' about it? What is 'en balao' about respecting the Constitution and doing it the way the Constitution is telling us to do it? And now, why have we done it the way we have done it? Why has Cabinet chosen, as far back as December, to appoint the hon. former Chief Justice? Precisely to have the benefit of the wisdom of those who are going to constitute this Committee. We wanted that Committee to have a look at the draft legislation. Tell us what they think about it. Tell us where they think we have to make amendments, where we have to make improvement. For example, should the hearing be held in public? Should it be in-camera? What would be the mechanism? Should there be a process where there is wide consultation or should they be just limited to whatever Cabinet has asked them to do? So, their involvement was extremely crucial. And I am very grateful for the hon. Yeung Sik Yuen, former Chief Justice and his Committee - I know there is the former Director of Public Prosecution who will be the vice- Chairperson, Mr Ajit Boolell, - and other members who contributed in reviewing and approving the draft legislation before it came to this House. So, there is nothing about 'en balao', Madam Speaker. We did it the right way and the right way to do it is to start by having consultations. This is why Section 7, which is rightly referred to by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, sets out the mechanisms which the Committee will use to come to its report. The first step is “preliminary consultation and exploration stage", whereby citizens and group of citizens, including political parties, shall be invited to submit their ideas and suggestions in writing. So, the hon. Leader of the Opposition again takes strong exception - why is it only preliminary? It is preliminary because the Committee needs to get all the suggestions first, before it moves to the next level, which is to do the research phase, to take all the recommendations they received, all the submissions they received from the forces vives from the NGOs, from the trade unionists, from the political parties, including the MSM, and then move to the next stage. When you move to the next stage, you cannot go back to the first stage because, otherwise, it will be a never-ending process. So, the next stage is the research stage where the Commission examines proposals received with identified experts. Identified experts - that is very important, Madam Speaker, because the law makes provision for the Commission to actually retain the services of experts. So, if during the consultation phase, there is a proposal which is very interesting and which is taken from maybe South Africa or New Zealand or another constitution, I am sure this Committee would be interested to have the view of an expert from that jurisdiction to tell us how did it work? How was that put into practice? This right of nature that we are talking about here, how was that implemented in practice? What was the experience of South Africa? What is the experience of Vanuatu and other countries? This is why this second phase is very important. Then comes the third stage, which is the deliberation stage. This deliberation stage involves the commissioners to discuss different orientation and issues. This is very crucial because this is an independent committee. There is no Member of Parliament. There is no political interference. It is those experts, those members of the Committee who will sit down and make their discussions and deliberations. Finally, the final stage is the drafting stage where a report will be prepared by the Commission on its findings and recommendations, including proposed constitutional amendments, each accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. Once this exercise is completed, that is, when this document would be made public. Everybody will have a chance to see what have been the recommendations of the Committee. Then we will move to Cabinet. Cabinet will examine it and then we will come to this House with an Act of Parliament to implement the recommendations of that Committee. So, today we are not amending the Constitution, we are just setting up this Committee. But there will come a time where this House will be called upon to amend the Constitution to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee. Madam Speaker, I hope that when we come to that point, I will not hear the Leader of the Opposition come up with other arguments not to ratify those constitutional amendments.

May I ask, for the people to understand properly, because, of course, a constitutional amendment is very complex. Do we understand that these recommendations can refer to part of what is proposed, not the whole of it? Do you understand my question?

Yes, Madam Speaker, this is a very valid point. You will see that Section 4 (1) of the Bill sets out an extensive number of proposed matters that can be covered. You will see, for example, Madam Speaker, some of the matters to be examined can be grouped under fundamental human rights. Some of them can be grouped under improving governance. Another group can be improving access to justice, and the fourth volet would be the political aspect of it. Now, of course, it would be for Cabinet ultimately to decide what recommendation to accept and what not to accept. Ultimately, it would be for this House to decide what recommendation to accept or not to accept, but at least, there would be a process of consultation. There would be a process of debate, and after that, people would have adopted a Constitution by Mauritians for Mauritians. We did not put any timeline, Madam Speaker. Deliberately, we did not put any timeline because you cannot bind this Constitutional Commission. You cannot start by telling them to meet this or that deadline but what we can give you, and I am sure that the hon. Prime Minister will agree with me, – the commitment we have to this country – is that we will bring the constitutional reform during our mandate. This we can take as given. That is why we have this committee, and we will come with the necessary constitutional reform. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned electoral reform. Yes, electoral reform is not one of the matters to be discussed by the committee. Political financing, powers of the Electoral Supervisory Commission, powers of the Electoral Commissioner, how election can be better organised are subjects of discussion that will be held in that committee, but not electoral reform. Why? Because for electoral reform, the consultation has already taken place. They have already invited the public to file all their representations. Everything has already been communicated. It is being worked by a committee at the level of the Prime Minister’s Office. When the time will come, I am sure the Prime Minister will come to Cabinet with a proposal, and eventually, with a Bill in Parliament. So, that is why we did not need to refer electoral reform to that expert committee because for electoral reform, consultation has already been completed. Now, we are at the stage of digesting all the recommendations and coming up with a proposal for adoption. Madam Speaker...

(Interruptions)

Carry on! Carry on!

I heard some noises. I did not know what it was because there are some people who are...

No, no, no. Do not take any notice. Only take notice of what I say!

The other point by the Leader of the Opposition was about the confidential submission. The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows already that at paragraph 6 of the Bill – “The Commission may hold public sittings as and when it deems necessary and may call any person it desires to hear in connection with its terms of reference.” So, it is for the committee. We are not directing the committee on how to conduct the proceedings.

The Commission!

But the committee...

It is not a committee. It is the Commission!

The Constitutional Review Commission, sorry. I keep saying ‘committee’. It should be the Constitutional Review Commission. So, the Constitutional Review Commission has the power already to hold hearings in public. We do not want to tie the hands of the Commission. If tomorrow there is someone who has a sensitive information and wants to communicate to the Commission, and we do not want people to know about it, we cannot tell the Commission: ‘No, you are bound to have public hearing.’ It is up for them to regulate their own proceedings. That is why the Commission is independent, and it should be given this flexibility. The Leader of the Opposition, again, takes strong exception to the fact that once the Commission will complete its inquiry, it will remit all its documents, all its records to the Law Reform Commission. I mean this is already a novelty. I have never seen the record of any commission of inquiry anywhere. It is only when you go to court that you have to petition, and then, the court gives an order to ask the commission to bring the records so that we can have access to what was said. At least, we are starting somewhere. We are telling that the records will be given to the Law Reform Commission. Why the Law Reform Commission? Because the Law Reform Commission is the body that is habilitated to come up with recommendations to review law. So, it would serve much better purpose for them to keep that record and see what has been debated in the Commission rather than put it in the National Assembly.

They will be the custodian.

They will be the custodian. It will be with them. Nothing prevents them, for example, from disseminating it, but they will be the ones keeping it because, otherwise, where do we keep it? There is going to be a Secretariat, but once the Commission has completed its business, there will no longer be any Secretariat. There will no longer be any staff, any room to keep all these records. So, at least, we are providing that the record will be safely kept with the Law Reform Commission. Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition – and that was one of the most laughable of all the comments – took strong objection that we are not consulting him and that we should have consulted him. May I remind him when his party was in power, when Sir Anerood Jugnauth was Prime Minister, what consultation meant? Because I know, in those days, the MMM had a Leader of the Opposition, and we know what was meant by consultation. There has never been any consultation when Sir Anerood Jugnauth was Prime Minister. There was only notification. They just notified, ‘We are appointing at the ICAC. We are appointing this person. Do whatever you want.’ And today, he is telling us to consult the Leader of the Opposition? We did better than this. We publicised the names of the members of the Commission so that if there were any objection before the law was passed, they would have already come up and told us what are their objection to the present composition of the Commission. They have not done so, and I hope that pays tribute to the identity of the members who will be in that Commission. Madam Speaker, I will not go and repeat whatever the hon. Prime Minister has spoken about, and I know there is a lot of other interveners who are going to talk individually on the different matters to be covered by that Commission. I would like to only say one thing. First, as a lawyer, as a practitioner, I think it was high time that we start getting someone to implement the recommendations of Lord Mackay, and create this new Court of Appeal, with dedicated judges sitting on appeal. It is high time to create this constitutional court that is going to speed up process and resolve matters dealing with the Constitution so that we do not have to wait for ages, for years, before we can have a constitutional redress. I am all for extending the powers of the Public Bodies Appeal Tribunal, which, Madam Speaker, you know very well, having chaired it yourself, increasing the powers, allowing it to consider appointment, enlarging it to even public service. The reform, which is fundamental on Public Interest Litigation, is already there in India. So many of us have gone to court with very good cases, very sound legal cases, and even before the judges were able to go on the merit of the case, the application was thrown out because the applicant did not, in the eyes of the judiciary, have sufficient direct interest in the matter. They did not have sufficient locus standi. A final word before resuming my seat, Madam Speaker, which is on the political front. It relates to anti-defection, which will be dealt with. There are those who are in favour and there are those who are against anti-defection. We already have anti-defection laws in our local government legislation. We have seen that, today, several councillors, despite no longer forming part of the Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM), refused to give effect to that defection rule. But I personally think that it is well worth having an independent review commission to look at the issue of anti-defection once and for all. We cannot go on with on and off, Madam Speaker! You cannot have a government which is at the ransom of one person. We cannot have a political party which keeps having the ransom of one leader. You know, if you have an ideological problem, I can understand. But you cannot, on whims and fancies or out of your own interest, of your volition, today, decide that you will be on this side and tomorrow you will be on that side. The people have elected a government. They have elected a coalition with a mandate. Madam Speaker, I will end by saying, I read it out – « Ce projet de loi est une gifle magistrale à ceux qui ont abdiqué leur responsabilité en prétextant que le gouvernement n'avait pas l'intention d'implémenter son programme électorale. Le MMM soutient entièrement ce projet de loi, et le moment voulu, nous voterons en faveur de tous amendements à la Constitution qui requiert une majorité de trois quarts des votes des élus de l'Assemblée nationale. » Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, we want to hear you, hon. François. (6.46 p.m.)

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Because Rodrigues is also in the news!

Surely, surely! You will hear it. You will hear it. I rise in support of the spirit of the Constitutional Review Commission Bill No. VI of 2026 with specific proposals, challenges and constructive engagement to its substance. Allow me first to congratulate the Government, the hon. Prime Minister, Dr. Ramgoolam, the hon. Attorney General, hon. Glover, and all the team behind this monumental piece of legislation. I will share my remarks today and I will also lay before the House a document setting out my proposals pending the preliminary consultation and exploration stage of the commission. Madam Speaker, 460 kilometres east of this Chamber, the people of Rodrigues are watching. They are watching to see whether this Parliament will tomorrow write a constitution that remembers them or one written without them. As a Rodriguan-born citizen, I carry their voices into this House. They want to know what will this Bill thereafter mean for their future, for Rodrigues and for their children and grandchildren. This builds on our shared vision for Rodrigues a new horizon, and it builds on what we own as a nation to the men and women, who in 1968, raised our Quadri colour flag over Champs de Mars with the courage and foresight to declare one people, one nation, in peace, justice and liberty. Today, when we revisit our supreme law, we are duty bound to honour that legacy and to expand it. Madam Speaker, before I debate the clauses, let me ask the fundamental question: what is a constitution? Our constitution is not merely a legal statute. Allow me to invoke the words of former Chief Justice of South Africa, Justice Ismail Mahomed, who said – “The Constitution of a nation is not simply a statute which mechanically defines the structures of government and the relations between the government and the governed. It is a ‘mirror reflecting the national soul’, the identification of the ideals and aspirations of a nation, the articulation of the values bonding its people and disciplining its government.” Madam Speaker, that is what is at stake in this Bill. Not a legal amendment, but a mirror, a soul. We must ensure that mirror reflects every citizen of our Republic, from Grand Baie to Plaisance, to Plaine Corail and to Port Mathurin. We have made this journey before. Over 58 years and 25 plus amendments, our constitution has evolved. From the Westminster model of an emerging post-colonial State to the proclamation of a Republic in 1992 and to the Rodrigues Regional Assembly of 2021, each amendment was a statement of who we were becoming. This review must be our most comprehensive, and it will depend absolutely on the will of the people and only the people. Let me be direct. If widespread confusion and scepticism take hold, this process is not merely at risk of failing. It will have already failed before the commission hold its first sitting. Madam Speaker, let me turn to some substance of the Bill, clause 3 (1). Invest the power to appoint every commissioner independently by the President. But one word is key, the word ‘may,’ not ‘shall.’ I am not a legal person, but ‘may.’ What does that discretionary word mean for the commission? I note that there is no requirement for parliamentary involvement of a commissioner's appointment. Gender parity – despite women holding only 17.9% of seats in this very House. Civil society representations – and I say this with full conviction – no seat for Rodrigues. The international IDEA Global State of Democracy Report flags concerns about institutional capture in Mauritius alongside countries facing democratic regression. We must not entrench that very risk into the body that will rewrite our supreme law. Clause 4 (1) (j) consecrates freedom of information, but immediately defers it to future legislation. And we are talking about constitutional review. Madam Speaker, Kenya Constitution of 2010, Article 35, enshrines access to information as a fully justiciable right. South Africa's Constitution, Section 32, does the same. We should not enshrine a principle and then hollow it out. The Bill also does – I am not quite sure if I am right – does not clearly address the removal of communal classification and the Best Loser System. Despite Cabinet’s announcement of 24 April 2026 – I heard the hon. Prime Minister mention a dose of proportional representation – the Bill contains no clear mandate to examine women representation mechanisms from a structural point of view. Here, I propose two new clauses: Clause 3A. I wish I could have read this Bill earlier, Madam Speaker, to share my proposals.

No, go ahead. Go ahead!

The Commission shall include at least one commissioner nominated from Rodrigues. Maybe by the Regional Assembly. It shall achieve gender parity and shall include civil society members appointed through a transparent public process. All appointments shall be tabled before the National Assembly and subject to parliamentary review within a reasonable period of time.

Where do you want to put that? Section 3?

Section 3A.

Another one, 3A?

Yes.

Not 3(2)?

No, 3A. I have circulated a document as ease of reference for that, Madam Speaker. My second proposal – clause 7A. The commission shall submit – because it is not defined in the Bill – its final report to the President. I would say; I propose: not later, let us say, 18 months from its first sitting. The report shall be tabled before the National Assembly and debated in a special committee of the whole House within a reasonable period of time. I leave it open. It can be 60 days or three months. Madam Speaker, Rodrigues is not an afterthought. Rodrigues’ distinct history and identity is a democracy within the national democracy, enshrined in Articles 75A to 75E of our Constitution and the Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act 2001. Yet, this Bill does not mention Rodrigues at all. Our Regional Assembly has been autonomous since 2001, and I note, Madam Speaker, that neither the RRA Act nor the Constitution itself uses the word autonomy explicitly - that ambiguity has consequences. I have personally experienced those consequences. In 2006, I filed the first electoral petition to test Rodrigues Regional Assembly laws in the case François versus Perin 208 SCJ 299 and again in 2022, Panyandee v. Roussety 2022 SCJ 369. We know of the accounts after years and we were not, we OPR, in a position to have access to Privy Council, which implies that justice for Rodrigues can remain just out of reach. I, therefore, welcome Clause 4(1)(k), the new Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court. This will make constitutional justice faster and closer and more accessible and without any bias. But, Madam Speaker, the bigger question remains. Will Rodrigues simply be taken on board through consequential amendments, as the hon. Prime Minister indicated in his reply to my Parliamentary question B/44 on 21 April 2026? Or will Rodrigues be a full and equal partner in this historical constitutional movement? And I now put to the House, to this House, three specific concerns. 1. the President can today dissolve the Rodrigues Regional Assembly by simple executive action. Rodrigues’ autonomous status must be protected from simple dissolution. Just one example aside, Madam Speaker. 2. Rodrigues today depends almost entirely on budgetary transfers from Mauritius. The Constitution must guarantee that financial relationship. However, our people must go beyond waiting for Port Louis to allocate funds. We need an extra step for greater control over our own destiny, our development and especially protection of our lands from braderie. 3. I propose the establishment of a Rodrigues Constituency Constitutional and Electoral Review Forum - I mean a forum, not a committee - composed of political parties, NGOs, social and economic associations, unions and community leaders to ensure Rodrigues people are not just consulted but heard. In addition, Madam Speaker, I propose a new Clause 4 (1)(t). The constitutional entrenchment and reinforcement of the autonomy of Rodrigues, including the protection of the Regional Assembly, the guarantee of adequate financial transfers to Rodrigues, and why not the extension of equivalent autonomous consideration to Agalega, the other Outer Islands, and in the future, Diego Garcia, Chagos. Madam Speaker, Clause 4 (1) (a) mentions technology as a new generation right. That is welcome. But I submit that technology must be more than a subject of rights. It must be an instrument of democracy itself. Let us consider these realities. In Estonia, citizens vote online from anywhere in the world for national, local and European Parliament elections through i- voting. Government services are fully digital. In Taiwan, the vTaiwan platform enables open policy deliberation and consensus building online. In Ecuador, the right to internet access is in the Constitution.

In France, right now. Right now.

I was going to mention that; you mentioned it for me. In India, just last year, the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Jain versus Union of India on 30 April 2025, declared that inclusive digital ecosystems are a constitutional imperative, part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21. So, connectivity is no longer a convenience, it is a right. For Rodrigues, this is not abstract. Our people need to participate and get access to. When Government services require physical presence on the mainland, our people are excluded. A Constitution fit for 2026, and beyond, must speak to the digital citizen, including the digital citizen of Rodrigues. Madam Speaker, open Government data must be a constitutional default. All public expenditures, contracts, procurement, we know that, must be published in a machine-readable format. For example, our citizen must have the right to submit representations to Legislative Committees. This is not being done here. We have legislative committees, but citizens do not communicate with us. They cannot communicate. And here I propose, Madam Speaker, a new Clause 4 (1) (u), that the entrenchment of a right to digital access and connectivity as a fundamental right for all citizens regardless of geography and the establishment of constitutional principle for e-democracy - I am canvassing this for a few years, e-democracy, - open Government data, accountable government, and digital participation in the legislative and administrative process. Madam Speaker, let me bring my proposal together. I propose to this House four things for this Bill before it is enacted – (i) Amend Clause 3 to guarantee an independent, gender-balanced, geographically representative Commission with a Commissioner from Rodrigues; (ii) Add a new Clause 7 (a) to set, let us say, an 18-month deadline requiring tabling of the final report and mandate a full Parliamentary debate; (iii) Add a new Clause 4 (1)(t) to constitutionally reinforce the entrenchment of Rodrigues' autonomy, not as a consequential amendment, but as a first order constitutional commitment; (iv) Add a new Clause 4 (1)(u) to establish a constitutional right to digital access and e-democracy framework, making this Constitution fit for the century it must govern. This has been part of the mandate of the Commission beforehand. Madam Speaker, I also propose that the Commission be mandated to examine the constitutional entrenchment of our anti-corruption institutions, despite the mentioned independence of DPP, as rightly said by hon. Prime Minister, by removing the FCC from the statutory vulnerability to executive interference, as Rwanda and Kenya have done. And I call, also, on the hon. Prime Minister to report progress on establishing a high- level committee to examine proposed amendments to the Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act before the next Regional Assembly elections due in a few months, despite bad governance challenges thereat. The Electoral Commissioner himself has confirmed that best practice requires reform to be legislated and consulted upon well before next regional electoral contest. Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that previous constitutional reform efforts in this House have failed because Parliament elevated partisan interests above national ones. Government proposes, Opposition disposes. I have watched this that cycle for 16 years from both side of the House. This time must be different. Political consensus is not a luxury in constitutional reform. It is the minimum threshold for legitimacy. A Constitution adopted by one fraction over the objection of another is not a mirror of a national soul. It is a partisan statute dressed in supreme law. Let us build something broader, something that will stand the test of time, something that every Mauritian in Port Louis, Vacoas, Grand Port, Mont Lubin, Rivière Cocos, La Ferme, and in Port Mathurin can call their own. Avek en vre sans du Mauritianisme, comme le Rodrigaisme, naturellement présent à Rodrigues, un pays, un peuple, une nation. This Bill, with the proposals, I and others will lay before the House and I will conclude, Madam Speaker.

It sounded like a conclusion.

Sorry?

It sounded like a conclusion already.

No, no. I am setting the tone because it is very important. Yes. I am getting there. I am concluding. Madam Speaker, what we are doing has the potential to be the foundation of what I mentioned. A Constitution is a covenant between citizen and the State. For my people of Rodrigues, that covenant must be written and applied with their full voices. This is the moment, this very specific historic moment. Let us make our pledge real in pixels and broadband cables and as well as in ink. For the people of Rodrigues, for the women of Mauritius, for the digital citizens of tomorrow and for the generation not yet born who will live under whatever Constitution we will adopt in this House. We owe our youths and our future generations a living Constitution that adapts with our evolving society. May this House deliver, with courage and determination, a new Constitution soon that reflects the will of all the people and the Republic of Mauritius. Long live Mauritius, Rodrigues, Agalega and Chagos. Long live the Republic! Madam Speaker, I thank you for your kind attention.

Thank you. We enjoyed that. Yes, we enjoyed that. Yes, hon. Jhummun, are you going to give us a flamboyant speech as well? (7.04 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, let me, from the very outset, thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for being here today. I do not know if he is still here to listen to us or in support of the other Members of the Opposition. I will not spare this opportunity to refute him. I do not get this opportunity often. After having listened to him carefully, I think his proposals are anba lao. He is proposing us to met soulie, lerla met soset.

You know that balao is a wood? You know that?

Not Balao, anba lao. Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate a monumental piece of legislation; the Constitutional Review Commission Bill. Why is this monumental? It is monumental because we are dealing with the supreme law of our country as mentioned by the hon. Prime Minister. Let me read Section 2 of our Constitution for those who are not well versed with it, including me – “This Constitution is the supreme law of Mauritius and if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution, that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency be void.” Madam Speaker, this speaks volumes about the absolute importance of the Bill before us today. The monumental importance of this Bill is clearly demonstrated by the overwhelming public interest it has generated. It is dominating our radios, trending our social media, and debated by the Bar and academia. Madam Speaker, this immense importance is equally reflected within this very Chamber where no fewer than 25 hon. Members, the hon. Chief Whip can confirm, have registered to participate in this debate. Indeed, in the Government Programme 2025-2029, the first mission is constitutional reform. One of my friends, a constitutional lawyer, once told me, "Sa constitution la, se enn mama dan constitution” by the way it is drafted. The British do not have a written one, but they gave such a strong Constitution to us. They forged a masterpiece that has anchored our Republic. However, Madam Speaker, after 58 long years since 1968, our constitutional fabric has inevitably worn out in certain areas. Even the best watches need careful tuning to keep perfect time. We are operating today under a completely new environment, a new social and economic order, shaped by explosive technological advancement where AI is cutting across all spheres of human life and the threat of climate change is overriding. Madam Speaker, there is a time for everything and a time to every purpose. Today, the time has surely come for change. We cannot remain static. Only fools expect different results by doing more of the same. Madam Speaker, we are not foolish. Business as usual is definitely not the option. We need to adapt, we need to move forward, and above all, we need to walk the talk. The Constitutional Review Commission Bill is without any doubt one of the most important constitutional initiatives proposed in Mauritius in recent years. Our Constitution must evolve, it must reflect our present realities and future ambitions. This Bill paves a historic path towards a fairer, modern, transparent and above all, an inclusive and sustainable society. Madam Speaker, let me seize this opportunity to thank and congratulate the hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Attorney General and his office for the remarkable work done since we took power, where more than 30 Bills have been passed to radically transform our legal landscape and deliver on our promises to the nation. These demonstrate an unparalleled work ethic and commitment to national progress. Madam Speaker, some of these worth mentioning Bills are the Financial Crimes Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions), National Agency for Drug Control (NADC), Legal Aid and Legal Assistance, Road Traffic Amendment Bill, Law Reform Commission, the Certificate of Character and the Anti-Money Laundering amongst others. Where no fewer than 30 Bills have been passed, yet, some people are saying nothing has been done, nanye pa pe bouze, system bizin sanze. Madam Speaker, if this is not systemic change, then what is it? To these people, I will simply say, patience is a virtue. You cannot undo years of stagnation in only 17 months. I used to say that when the going gets tough, the tough get going, and this is exactly what the hon. Prime Minister and this Government are doing. We did not shrink away from the monumental challenges we inherited. We have said it time and over and over again. Instead, as the hon. Prime Minister says, "Nou pou met l'ordre kot ena desordre." And we will not falter, nor will we stop until fully executed and delivered. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, some have chosen the easy way. They have quit the Government to sit in the Opposition. Les pompiers d'hier sont devenus les pyromanes d'aujourd'hui. They were sent here by the population to extinguish national crisis and face international challenges. Instead, Madam Speaker, they have chosen to abandon. All of a sudden, they see darkness everywhere, partou inn vinn nwar. Even you, Madam Speaker, have not been spared by their criticisms, not even the Attorney General who has been criticised for mishandling the Chagos deal while they were part and parcel of all negotiations. This is called la démagogie outrancière et l'amnésie sélective. This is the raison d'être, Madam Speaker, of the anti-defection provisions and the landmark right to recall Members of the National Assembly for serious misconduct. This will ensure political accountability where we remain strictly accountable to people who put us in office. Hence, Madam Speaker, in the future, I just hope no more floor crossing or horse trading. To sote, to tase! Madam Speaker, this Bill explicitly provides the Commission with powers to examine the rights of nature and the prevention of environmental degradation. Ensuring a sustainable growth and development is of an utmost importance at a time where the world is severely hit by the consequences of global warming and climate change. Our friends from Rezistans ek Alternativ have been going around with their files to canvass about droit de la nature et protection de l'environnement. We all present here cannot but rejoice and welcome such proposals. Madam Speaker, while some of the proposed constitutional reforms are deemed necessary due to evolution, technological change and climate change, yet others, like the protection of fundamental rights and the consolidation of democracy and institutions are more necessary than ever before, after having witnessed les dérives and misuse of powers of the previous MSM-led government and their cronies. Do you want an example? I will give you three, Madam Speaker – • First, the setting up of a mandatory requirement for the holding of local government elections at constitutionally set intervals is to avoid the repetitive postponement of such elections by the MSM-led government. • Second, Madam Speaker, the reinforcement, if necessary, of the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions is rightly to prevent attempts at hijacking the powers of the DPP, thereby prompting the former DPP to take legal actions to protect his constitutional independence and his Office, where he even had to run through the back door. • Thirdly, Madam Speaker, the proposal to constitutionally reinforce privacy protections and strictly delimit covert surveillance powers is particularly important in any democratic society governed by the rule of law to avoid episodes like those demonstrated by the Moustass Leaks, where every one of us was at risk of being tapped anytime and anywhere. I hope that such a proposal will reassure my good friend, who is not here, hon. A. Duval. Madam Speaker, it is therefore legitimate to provide constitutional protections around technology, data privacy, and privacy protections, as our Constitution was drafted at a time where there was no artificial intelligence, no digital surveillance, no cyber intrusion and massive data collection. Madam Speaker, another breakthrough of this Bill is in terms of new generation rights. While this framework guarantees essential protections across right to health, right to education, technology and the environment, it opens doors to constitutionally securing basic rights to adequate housing and food. Why not, Madam Speaker? I think that we can rightly believe that one day we may have a right to food and a right to housing, which are universal human rights recognised under international law to ensure social and economic dignity. Madam Speaker, the proposal to have an Appointment Committee and the principle of freedom of information were among our promises to this nation during the last election. This Bill, therefore, addresses issues which many citizens have been demanding for years, namely greater transparency in political life and constitutional recognition of freedom of information principles. Indeed, Madam Speaker, a mature democracy cannot function effectively without transparency and public trust. The introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and class actions are indeed very close to my heart, as I did propose this long back, in the years 2005- 2006, to the then Attorney General. While he did welcome the proposal, yet, he expressed some reserves. Madam Speaker, having studied in India myself, I have been fortunate enough to witness how PIL has fundamentally reshaped Indian legal and social frameworks with landmark cases in terms of speedy trial, gender equality, industrial pollution, right to livelihood, and more recently, officially recognising transgender individuals. The traditional rules of locus standi will no longer be a constraint under PIL. Madam Speaker, Public Interest Litigation and class action can be considered a milestone in our constitutional and legal system, where ordinary citizens without any locus standi can fight for human rights, like any kind of discrimination such as xenophobia, gender issues, animal rights or the protection of our planet amongst others. I would also like to applaud the proposal for a new Court of Appeal which was long overdue. To conclude, Madam Speaker, because this text is so strong and so vital, we cannot allow it to be amended haphazardly. If we are to modernise this magna dan konstitision, we must do it through the structured, expert-led and serious process outlined in this very Bill. As responsible guardians, and in line with our promises as spelt out in our programme, we must tread with absolute caution and seriousness. True modernisation requires us to be deliberate, serious and deeply careful, and more importantly, we must rise above partisan politics. I will end by saying that while A. G. Gardiner’s essay ‘On the Rule of the Road’ argues that to preserve the liberties of all, individual freedom must be curtailed and personal actions must be balanced with social responsibility and mutual respect, our Government upholds core values of peace, justice and liberty. I, therefore, support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Beechook, it is your turn! No? Ms J. Bérenger. I am sorry. I am sorry. Hon. Ms J. Bérenger, yes! I was trying to go fast.

Oui, deuxième fois, aujourd’hui!

Ce n’est pas fait exprès. (7.22 p.m.)

Madame la présidente, il est des moments où une Assemblée ne légifère pas seulement pour le présent, elle légifère pour la mémoire. Aujourd'hui, en est un. La Constitution, que nous nous apprêtons à confier à une commission de révision, n'est pas née d'un acte souverain de notre peuple. Elle nous a été remise. Pensée dans une autre langue que celle de nos rues ; rédigée dans des bureaux d'un empire qui s'en allait ; négociée pour un pays que nous n'étions pas encore, elle nous a servi. Elle a tenu. Elle a permis à une petite île de devenir une démocratie respectée. Pour cela, nous lui devons reconnaissance. Mais une Constitution qui nous a été donnée n'est pas la même chose qu'une Constitution que nous nous serions donnés. 58 ans après l'indépendance, le temps est venu de la reprendre en main. Non pour la renier, mais pour l'améliorer. Pas pour effacer ce qui a été bâti, mais pour y inscrire enfin ce que nous sommes devenus : une nation qui ne demande plus la permission d'être libre. C'est cela le sens profond de cette commission. Ce n'est pas simplement un exercice juridique, mais un acte de maturité nationale. Et l'histoire nous jugera sur cette promesse d'une réforme constitutionnelle. Pas sur les discours que nous prononçons, pas sur cette loi que nous examinons ce soir, mais sur ce qu'elle devrait produire. Sur ce que cette commission accomplira ou n'accomplira pas. Sur le courage que le gouvernement aura eu de mettre en œuvre ou qu'il n'aura pas eu. Alors, disons clairement à celles et ceux qui siègeront dans cette commission, le chemin qui les attend. Le premier défi sera celui de l'ambition. Une révision constitutionnelle ne se mesure pas au nombre de ses articles mais à la hauteur de sa vision. Inscrire les droits de la nature, les droits sociaux et économiques, le droit à la vie privée du citoyen contre la surveillance de l'État, ainsi que les valeurs de la paix, la justice et la liberté dans notre loi fondamentale. Voilà une ambition digne de nous. Voilà la promesse que nous avions faite et pour laquelle un mandat a été donné. Mais ces droits ne doivent pas juste être une liste de principes pour faire moderne. Bien pensé, ils doivent être la réponse d'une nation aux défis de son temps. Le 21e siècle nous confronte à des questions que les rédacteurs de la Constitution de 1968 ne pouvaient pas même formuler - une planète qui se réchauffe, des technologies qui savent tout de nous, une économie qui accroît les inégalités. Une Constitution qui resterait muette devant ces réalités ne protégerait rien. Inscrire le droit à un environnement sain, le droit à la santé, le droit à l'éducation, la protection du citoyen contre la surveillance, c'est dire à chaque Mauricien que sa dignité ne dépend ni de son revenu, ni de son origine, ni du bon vouloir de l'État. C'est faire de la Constitution non plus un texte qui encadre le pouvoir mais un texte qui élève le citoyen. Et il y a le second volet dans ce premier défi, celui de la consolidation de notre démocratie et de nos institutions. Soyons clairs sur ce que cela veut dire. La dernière décennie nous a montré ce qu'il arrive quand les institutions censées être indépendantes cessent de l'être. Quand la capture de l'État par des intérêts privés est complète. La confiance s'effrite et avec elle, quelque chose de la République elle-même. Réparer cela ne suffit pas. Nous ne voulons pas seulement restaurer ce qui a été abîmé et encore moins remplacer la capture d'un groupe par celle d'un autre groupe. Nous voulons un changement profond de notre système. Un système où l'État sert le bien commun. La qualité de vie et la dignité pour tous avant les profits et les avantages de quelques-uns. Un système où les gouvernants rendent des comptes, où les contre-pouvoirs ne dépendent pas de la nomination de ceux qu'ils doivent réguler ou surveiller. Où l'unité dans la diversité n'est pas un prétexte pour rendre invisibles les discriminations et les dominations. Où la politique est un engagement et non un filon à exploiter. C'est l'ambition que porte notre mouvement. Une Constitution n'est pas faite pour figer un pays dans ce qu'il est. Elle est faite pour lui permettre de devenir ce qu'il doit être. Celle que nous léguerons doit ouvrir ce chemin et non pas le fermer. Mais l'ambition ne suffit pas. Il faudra aussi de la rigueur intellectuelle et l'ouverture d'esprit. Il existe, par exemple, une question que la commission ne pourra pas contourner et qui décidera de la valeur réelle de tout ce travail. Ces nouveaux droits seront-ils des droits substantiels ou des droits procéduraux ? Un droit substantiel permet au citoyen de le réclamer devant un juge. Si on prend, par exemple, le droit à l'eau potable, le juge va-t-il, comme cela a été le cas dans d'autres pays, devoir décider combien de litres accorder par personne ? Saura-t-il arbitrer entre la disponibilité, la capacité et la demande sans déborder sur le domaine du gouvernement ? Un droit procédural, quant à lui, peut éviter la politisation de nos cours car il ne fait que baliser la manière dont une décision est prise. Le juge, si je reprends l'exemple que je viens de citer, devra alors se demander non pas quel volume d'eau accorder, mais si les autorités ont agi raisonnablement. Mais ce droit aura-t-il alors la même portée qu'un droit qu'on peut faire valoir pour lui-même ? Inscrire le droit à la santé, le droit à l'éducation, le droit à l'environnement sain dans notre Constitution, c'est une avancée. Mais si ces droits ne sont qu'un ornement sans portée devant les tribunaux, alors il aura été donné au peuple qu'une promesse en papier. La commission devra choisir droit par droit avec lucidité en pesant l'effet sur la justice, sur l'administration et sur la séparation des pouvoirs. C'est un travail difficile et c'est précisément cela que nous attendrons de cette commission. Le deuxième défi sera celui de la méthode. D'abord l'indépendance, cette commission ne doit appartenir à aucun camp, ni au gouvernement, ni à l'opposition, mais au pays. Le jour où ses membres oublieront cela, ils cesseront de servir la Constitution pour servir un agenda. Ensuite, la transparence, le peuple est propriétaire de cette Constitution. Il a le droit de voir, de lire, de comprendre ce que l'on propose en son nom. Une réforme préparée loin des regards du citoyen ne sera pas une réforme démocratique mais un espoir confisqué. L'article 7 de ce projet de loi prévoit que le rapport sera transmis au président, mais pas qu'il soit rendu public. Madame la présidente, je demande que le rapport de cette commission soit publié dans son intégralité et déposé devant cette Assemblée. Le citoyen ne doit pas avoir à demander la permission de lire l'avenir de sa propre loi fondamentale. Madame la présidente, les grandes réformes ont un ennemi, la lenteur. Ce qui est promis pour demain a une fâcheuse habitude d'arriver après-demain, voire jamais. Et c'est devenu malheureusement une marque de fabrique de ce gouvernement. J'ai entendu que l'Attorney General prévoit un rapport de cette commission pour mars 2028. J'aimerais bien le croire tant le symbole des 60 ans d'indépendance est beau. Mais le programme gouvernemental promettait cette commission dans un délai de 6 mois. Elle nous parvient 16 mois plus tard. Ce simple écart est un avertissement. Car ce rapport ne sera qu'une première étape. Il faudra ensuite la préparation des projets de loi par le bureau de l'Attorney General. Et là aussi, uniquement si le gouvernement approuve les propositions du rapport. Voilà le grand défi, Madame la présidente. Évidemment le gouvernement et le Parlement ne pourront pas se déposséder de leur rôle constitutionnel et ne faire qu'approuver les recommandations de la commission. Mais celle-ci ne serait qu'une mascarade si on ne prend pas les recommandations au sérieux. Ou si on relance après elle de nouvelles consultations ou des recherches interminables. Nous arriverions à la fin de cette législature sans que cette promesse ne soit remplie. Et avant de terminer, il faut parler de la réforme du système électoral qui ne figure pas dans ce texte. La dose de proportionnelle, la représentation des femmes au Parlement, l'équilibre de nos circonscriptions. Rien de tout cela n'est confié à la commission. La fin de la déclaration communautaire obligatoire, elle non plus n'y figure pas. On nous explique que ces réformes ont été retirées du texte pour être traitées séparément plus vite ce qui pourrait être une bonne chose car la loi électorale ne doit pas être modifiée juste avant le scrutin. Et aussi, parce que le sujet a fait l'objet de tant de travaux dans le passé qu'on peut aller dans le sens du consensus qui a fini par se dégager sans devoir réinventer la roue. On aimerait bien croire à cette explication, Madame la présidente. Mais la décision prise par ce gouvernement, y compris les commentaires méprisants de certains, permet d'en douter. Des ministres qui affirment que la réforme électorale n'est pas une priorité, pensent peut-être qu'ils gagneront les faveurs des électeurs en se concentrant sur les questions de pouvoir d'achat ou de drain mais ils oublient que nos difficultés économiques sont intimement liées à la gouvernance et au système qui les produisent. Ils ne veulent pas changer de système tout simplement, Madame la présidente. Nous, dans cette opposition militante, nous croyons au vrai changement. Nous ne ferons donc pas obstacle à une réforme, à cette réforme promise aujourd'hui. Nous avons cru à cette promesse avant qu'elle ne soit un projet de loi. Nous en serons désormais les gardiens. Madame la présidente, nos enfants ne nous demanderont pas combien de temps nous avons été au pouvoir. Ils nous demanderont si nous avons été à la hauteur. Si lorsque l'occasion s'est présentée de donner enfin à Maurice une constitution née de Maurice, si nous avons tremblé ou si nous avons progressé. Que notre réponse soit la bonne. Je vous remercie pour votre attention.

Merci. Merci beaucoup. Hon. Beechook, now it is your turn. I am sorry. (7.35 p.m.)

Oui, merci, Madame la présidente. Avant d'aborder mon discours, généralement, il est de mon devoir de réfuter ce qui vient de l'opposition. Néanmoins, je dois avouer en toute sincérité, que l'honorable Joanna Bérenger, a fait acte de bonne foi. Néanmoins, il y a quelque chose qui lui a échappé, qu'il faut que je rectifie, c'est que l'honorable Premier ministre a notamment, lors de son allocution, précisée que la réforme électorale, il a mis l'accent sur la nécessité que ce pays ait une opposition. Donc, de facto, nous comprenons qu’une réforme électorale est nécessaire et une réforme électorale aura lieu. Néanmoins, Madame la présidente, en débattant de ce sujet, il m'est venu cette citation de Montesquieu qui mettait déjà sous les yeux du monde au 18e siècle – « Une chose n'est pas juste parce qu'elle est loi, mais elle doit être loi parce qu'elle est juste. » Mais ce qui était juste lorsque notre constitution a été rédigée en 1968, ne l'est pas forcément aujourd'hui. Donc, il convient à ce gouvernement, à ce Premier ministre, à cet Attorney General de vraiment prendre les taureaux par les cornes et adresser les problèmes fondamentaux qui émanent de cette constitution qui a fait son temps, qui nous a servi, mais qui nécessite une modernisation. Madame la présidente, la constitution ne peut pas être un agrégat de lignes et paragraphes, c'est le battement de cœur de notre République. Et de cela, je dirais que dans toutes les réformes fondamentales, la monstration est meilleure que la démonstration car il ne suffit pas de démontrer par des raisonnements abstraits que cette réforme est nécessaire. Il faut montrer ce qu'elle apporte à nos concitoyens, montrer comment elle renforce la justice, montrer comment elle éclaire l'avenir de notre République. Pour cela, Madame la Présidente, je ne vais pas être long, mais je vais m'appuyer sur un malheureux événement que notre nation a connu, c'est le décès des 12 patients dialysés à l'hôpital Souillac durant la pandémie de la Covid-19, c'était en 2021. 12 personnes sous traitement à l'hôpital Souillac meurent et personne ne sait pourquoi. Les familles des victimes ne savent pas pourquoi. Zéro recours possible. Un rapport, un Fact- Finding Committee sur ce malheureux, sur ce funeste carnage est resté dans le tiroir des dirigeants de l'époque. Et face à cela, quel a été le recours ? Quel a été le recours des proches des victimes ? Face à cette opacité, c'était quasi impossible de leur rendre justice. Il aura fallu un changement de gouvernement pour que l'honorable Anil Bachoo, après avoir discuté de cela au Conseil des Ministres, rende public ce rapport pour que par la suite, l'honorable Premier Ministre annonce notre système judiciaire annonce qu'il y aurait un judicial inquiry sur cette issue. Mais Madame, regardons aux provisions qui sont proposées par cette loi et essayons de l'appliquer à cette situation, nous allons voir comment les amendements que nous comptons apporter auraient pu aider le justiciable Mauricien. Je prends par exemple, le principe de la Freedom of Information qui sera inscrit dans la constitution et sera accompagné d'un Freedom of Information Bill. S'il y avait eu cette loi, s'il y avait eu cette loi, tout citoyen mauricien, non seulement les familles des victimes, auraient pu écrire et exiger que ce rapport qu'ils avaient honteusement mis au placard, soit rendu public pour statuer les responsabilités. Les familles des victimes auraient pu faire leur deuil. Voilà comment cette Freedom of Information Bill permettra au citoyen lambda d'avoir accès à l'information publique. Cet amendement justement à la Constitution qui inscrira la Freedom of Information va renforcer l'action, l'accès à l'information publique, mais par la même, va encourager la transparence des dirigeants, la responsabilité et va instaurer une culture d'accountability. L'introduction du Public Interest Litigation, PIL. S'il y avait cette provision à l'époque, et bien à ce moment-là, peu importe quel citoyen qui aurait un reasonable interest, aurait pu entrer une affaire en cour pour réclamer jusque justice soit faite dans le cas des 12 patients dialysés. Une class action, c'est-à-dire une action de groupe, c'est-à-dire toutes les victimes, tous les proches des victimes des 12 patients dialysés auraient pu mutualiser tous les moyens et entrer un recours envers nos tribunaux pour réclamer justice. Voilà ce que nous souhaitons rendre possible. Et finalement, je vais m'appesantir sur the right to recall for Members of the National Assembly. S'il y avait eu the right to recall for Member of the National Assembly, je vous assure, Madame la présidente, le ministre Jagutpal n'aurait pas été ministre.

Pas que lui !

Certainement ! Madame la présidente, j'ai essayé d'expliquer à cette Chambre à travers un événement comment le citoyen a accès à la justice, comment notre système devient plus transparent, comment les dirigeants, les politiques deviennent plus accountable. Les réformes proposées, Madame la présidente, rendent un pouvoir que le citoyen, l'électeur, perd au moment de l'élection. Ça a été très, très bien résumé par l'éminent sociologue Pierre Bourdieu, qui disait dans sa critique du champ politique sous l'appellation ‘La délégation et le fétichisme politique.’ Je vais le résumer en quelques secondes. Qu'est-ce qui se passe lorsqu'un électeur, un citoyen, vote ? Il croit détenir le pouvoir de voter. C'est lui qui a voté et a mis sur les sièges des dirigeants, des élus. Mais par là même – c'est ce que Bourdieu appelle la boîte noire –, il se passe quelque chose de funeste. C'est que l'électeur, parallèlement, perd le pouvoir qu'il va déléguer à ses dirigeants, à ses élus. De plus, désormais, le peuple, l'électeur, n'existe que par l'existence de ces élus qui parlent en son nom. Le pouvoir des citoyens ; et il y a une confiscation de ce pouvoir par les élus. Mais lorsque je regarde tous les amendements que nous souhaitons apporter pour la population, nous voyons que nous faisons un retour le chemin inverse. On réattribue un certain nombre de pouvoirs aux citoyens mauriciens, aux électeurs mauriciens. C'est quelque chose de fondamentale. Je ne vais pas être long. Je vais dire que c'est pour cela que je soutiens cette commission et je vais y apporter ma contribution. J'encourage tous les Mauriciens à y apporter leur contribution parce qu’on oublie facilement qu'il s'agit d'une commission qui va travailler avec le peuple et pour le peuple. C'est un texte rempli de bonnes intentions. Madame la présidente, je vais terminer ici. This is why I recommend this Bill to this House. Merci, Madame la présidente.

Hon. Ms Anquetil ! (7.46 p.m.)

Madame la présidente, une Constitution, ce n'est pas un vieux livre que l'on garde précieusement sur une étagère en espérant qu'il ne prenne pas trop la poussière. Une constitution, c'est la colonne vertébrale d'un pays et c'est ce qui tient une nation debout. C'est ce qui protège son peuple. C'est ce qui donne à chaque citoyenne et à chaque citoyen sa place dans notre République. Quand un pays grandit, quand son peuple évolue, quand ses défis deviennent plus complexes, il faut avoir le courage de se demander si cette colonne vertébrale tient encore droite. Ce soir, nous ne sommes pas là pour faire de la chirurgie esthétique institutionnelle. Nous ne sommes pas là pour mettre un peu de peinture neuve sur de vieilles fissures. Nous sommes là pour regarder les fondations même de notre République. Nous sommes là pour nous demander avec honnêteté : est-ce que nos institutions parlent encore au peuple ? Est-ce que nos droits protègent vraiment les plus vulnérables ? Est-ce que notre démocratie ressemble encore à la société mauricienne d'aujourd'hui ? Est-ce qu'elle est prête pour la République de Maurice de demain ? Mais, Madame la présidente, il y a une question fondamentale que nous devons poser avec courage. Est-ce que notre République traite réellement les femmes et les hommes avec la même dignité, les mêmes droits et les mêmes opportunités ? Une démocratie ne peut se dire pleinement moderne, juste et égalitaire, tant que les femmes restent sous-représentées dans les lieux de décision, doivent travailler deux fois plus pour être reconnues à la même hauteur que les hommes et continuent de subir le poids des inégalités salariales, des responsabilités familiales, des violences, des stéréotypes et des barrières invisibles. C'est cela, Madame la présidente, la force de ce moment. Le Constitutional Review Commission Bill n'est pas simplement un texte de plus dans l'agenda parlementaire. C'est une invitation à ouvrir les fenêtres de notre maison commune, à faire entrer l'air du temps et à dire avec courage : notre République mérite d'être regardée, réparée, modernisée et renforcée. Mais cette modernisation ne sera complète que si elle permet aussi de corriger les inégalités persistantes entre les femmes et les hommes dans notre République. Madame la présidente, depuis le 12 mars 1968, notre Constitution accompagne l'histoire de notre pays. Née avec l'indépendance sous l'impulsion de Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, alors Premier ministre, elle a traversé avec nous nos progrès, nos crises, nos contradictions, nos espoirs, tout en posant les bases d'une nation libre, souveraine et résolument tournée vers l'avenir. 58 ans plus tard, c'est le Dr. Navin Ramgoolam, Premier ministre, qui vient poursuivre cet héritage en ouvrant une nouvelle page de notre histoire constitutionnelle. L'histoire retiendra que dans les grands moments fondateurs de notre nation, les empreintes du Parti travailliste ont toujours marqué le destin de notre pays. En 1968, pour donner naissance à une nation libre. En 2026, pour donner un nouveau souffle à notre démocratie. Et ce nouveau souffle doit être celui de l'égalité réelle, car une République qui avance sans ses femmes n'avance qu'à moitié. Une démocratie qui ne donne pas aux femmes pleinement leur place demeure inachevée et déconnectée des réalités de notre temps. Madame la présidente, une République qui veut inscrire dans sa constitution les valeurs de paix, de justice et de liberté comme boussole nationale, mais surtout, une République qui comprend enfin que la démocratie ne peut pas être complète sans égalité réelle. L'égalité réelle ne se limite pas au texte de loi. C'est une égalité vécue au quotidien où chaque femme peut accéder aux mêmes responsabilités, à la même reconnaissance et aux mêmes opportunités, sans obstacles liés à son genre et où chaque jeune fille grandit en sachant qu'aucune ambition ne lui est interdite. Madame la présidente, je prends la parole ce soir dans cette auguste Assemblée en tant que femme. Une femme passionnée de politique. Une femme héritière d'une famille de combats syndicaux et de luttes sociales. Une femme qui n'est pas spectatrice de l'histoire, mais une femme qui choisit de se lever dans l'histoire. Et quand une femme parle de constitution, Madame la présidente, elle ne parle pas seulement d'articles, de procédures ou de mécanismes institutionnels. Elle parle de place. Elle parle de dignité. Elle parle de reconnaissance. Elle parle de justice. Elle parle ! Elle parle de ses portes qu'il a fallu pousser, parfois avec le sourire, parfois avec la patience, parfois avec la colère, mais toujours avec détermination parce que nous, les femmes, nous savons très bien ce que cela veut dire être présente mais invisible. Nous, les femmes, nous savons ce que veut dire contribuer pleinement, mais être reconnues partiellement. Alors oui, Madame la présidente…

Dans l'ombre. Dans l'ombre.

Dans l'ombre, oui ! Alors, oui, Madame la présidente, ce débat constitutionnel est aussi un débat sur la place des femmes dans notre République. La Constitutional Review Commission devra avoir le courage de reconnaître et de corriger concrètement les inégalités entre les femmes et les hommes à Maurice, car moderniser une constitution ne consiste pas seulement à réformer les institutions, mais aussi à garantir une égalité réelle dans les droits, dans les chances, dans la représentation, dans la sécurité, dans le respect et dans l'accès aux responsabilités. Madame la présidente, au fond, la question est simple. Dans la République de Maurice de demain, qui aura vraiment sa place à la table ? Pas seulement les puissants, pas seulement ceux qui parlent fort, pas seulement ceux qui ont toujours eu l'habitude d'être écoutés, mais aussi celles et ceux qui tiennent le pays debout en silence. Les mères, les travailleuses et travailleurs, les jeunes, les familles modestes, les personnes vulnérables, les citoyens que l'on applaudit parfois dans les discours, mais que l’on oublie trop souvent dans les décisions. Une constitution digne de ce nom doit parler aussi pour eux. Madame la présidente, cette réforme parle des droits fondamentaux et c'est essentiel. Le droit à la santé, le droit à l'éducation, le droit à la dignité sociale, le droit à un environnement sain, le droit à l'information, le droit à une justice accessible. Il faut rajouter avec force, le droit à l'égalité réelle entre les femmes et les hommes. Mais soyons clairs, un droit écrit dans une constitution ne doit pas rester une belle phrase pour un discours officiel. Un droit doit changer la vie des gens. Le droit à la santé, ce n'est pas seulement une ligne dans un texte, c'est une mère. C'est une mère qui ne doit pas choisir entre soigner son enfant et payer ses factures. Le droit à l'éducation, ce n'est pas seulement une promesse. C'est une petite fille dans chaque quartier qui doit grandir avec les mêmes chances, la même confiance et les mêmes rêves qu'un petit garçon. Le droit à l'égalité entre les hommes et femmes, ce n'est pas un slogan, c'est une femme qui n'a pas à s'excuser d'avoir de l'ambition. Le droit à l'environnement sain, ce n'est pas un slogan vert pour décorer un programme. C'est l'eau que nous buvons, c'est l'air que nous respirons, c'est la terre que nous laisserons aux générations futures. Et si la Constitution ne parle pas de la vie réelle des gens, alors elle devient un beau texte enfermé dans une vitrine. Or, une République ne se construit pas dans une vitrine. Elle se construit dans les écoles, dans les hôpitaux, dans les maisons, dans les lieux de travail, dans les quartiers, dans les villages, dans les villes, dans chaque espace où une citoyenne ou un citoyen attend de l'État non pas des promesses, mais du respect. Madame la présidente, il y a aussi une question profonde : qui sommes-nous comme nation ? Pendant trop longtemps, notre démocratie a porté les marques d'un passé où l'on classait les citoyens dans des cases. Des cases communautaires, des cases héritées de l'histoire, des cases parfois devenues trop petites pour contenir la richesse de notre peuple. Aujourd'hui, la République de Maurice peut avoir le courage de dire avant d'être enfermée dans une catégorie, nous sommes des citoyens. Avant d'être divisée, nous sommes mauriciens. Avant d'être comptée séparément, nous devons apprendre à avancer ensemble. Ce n'est pas effacer notre diversité, c'est lui donner une dignité nouvelle. Ce n'est pas nier nos racines, c'est refuser qu'elles deviennent des murs. Dans ma famille on m'a appris une vérité, une vérité simple. Aucun droit ne tombe du ciel. Les droits, ça se gagne, ça se défend, ça se transmet. Madame la présidente, je pense ce soir à celles et ceux qui se sont battus avant nous. Je pense aux syndicalistes. Je pense aux travailleurs. Je pense aux femmes qui ont mené des combats sans micro, sans caméra, sans reconnaissance. Je pense à nos grands-mères. Je pense à nos mères. Je pense à ces femmes qui n'avaient pas toujours leur nom dans les livres d'histoire, mais qui ont écrit l'histoire dans la chair de notre pays. Et je crois, je crois qu'elles nous diraient aujourd’hui : 'n'ayez pas peur du changement quand il sert la justice. Ne reculez pas lorsque l'histoire vous demande d'avancer'. Madame la présidente, une République qui n'écoute plus son peuple devient une institution froide. Une République qui ne protège pas les plus faibles devient une machine administrative. Une République qui ne fait pas de place aux femmes, aux jeunes, aux oubliés, devient une promesse inachevée. Mais surtout, surtout, une République qui ne corrige pas les inégalités entre les femmes et les hommes, reste une République incomplète. Et moi, Madame la présidente, je ne veux pas d'une République incomplète. Je ne veux pas d'une République qui remercie les femmes dans les discours, mais les oublie dans les décisions. Je ne veux pas d'une République qui célèbre les femmes un jour, une journée dans l'année, mais ne leur garantit pas une égalité réelle tous les jours. Je ne veux pas d'une République où l'égalité reste un idéal lointain. Je veux une République qui ose. Je veux une République qui protège. Je veux une République qui rassemble. Une République qui regarde ses citoyens sans les trier, sans les réduire, sans les enfermer. Oui, cette réforme est ambitieuse. Oui, elle demande du courage. Oui, elle suscitera des débats et heureusement. Car l'histoire ne respecte pas ceux qui hésitent éternellement devant les portes ouvertes. Madame la présidente, sous le leadership du l’honorable Premier ministre, le Dr. Navin Ramgoolam, la République de Maurice engage aujourd'hui une réflexion profonde sur ses institutions, ses droits et son avenir démocratique. Je veux saluer l’honorable Premier ministre, le Dr. Navin Ramgoolam pour avoir respecté son engagement envers le peuple mauricien. Le Constitutional Review Commission aura une mission historique, examiner notre Constitution et formuler des recommandations pour renforcer notre démocratie, moderniser nos institutions et préparer Maurice aux défis du 21e siècle. Je souhaite bien évidemment, bien naturellement, plein de succès à cette commission. Mais au-delà de la commission, au-delà des experts, au-delà des juristes, ce débat doit appartenir au peuple mauricien. Car une Constitution ne doit pas uniquement être le texte des juristes, elle doit aussi devenir la voix du peuple. Une voix qui dit que les femmes ne doivent plus être invitées à la table après, après que les décisions ont été prises, mais présentes là où l'avenir se construit. Madame la présidente, pour conclure, ce soir, je crois que nous sommes à un point charnière. Un moment où nous pouvons choisir une République plus inclusive, une République où l'identité ne divise plus, mais rassemble. Une République qui ose se transformer pour être enfin à la hauteur de son peuple. Vive la démocratie, vive l'égalité réelle, vive la justice sociale, vive la République de Maurice ! Je vous remercie.

Yes, hon. Etwareea!

Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned. Mr Lobine rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. Debate adjourned accordingly.