Parlement : Suivez les débats sur le Constitutional Review Commission Bill

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]given where credit is due.

[00:00:02]Constitutional reform should never be bought behind the back of the electorate through disguise or without democratic legitimacy and broad national consensus.

[00:00:16]When dealing with difficult and complex constitutional questions, the most democratic approach is often to appoint a constitutional review commission, to hold public hearings, to engage in broad consultations, and to have meaningful participation at a national level. We are not the first country, however, to choose this path to constitutional reform.

[00:00:44]And madam speaker, the issue here, the real issue is will this con commission become a genuine mechanism for constitutional reform or merely a mechanism for constitutional delay and that is a valid question because without strict deadline without a stage implementation roadmap without mand mandatory interim reporting given the broad uh uh uh status that has been given the broad uh uh section 4 and without clear implementation objectives then there's a risk madame speaker that the process simply drifts indefinitely and that is not theoretical.

[00:01:35]Mauritius has seen, Madam Speaker, its fair share of commissions, reports, consultations, and reform exercises which ultimately produce little to no concrete implementation. I think here in particular of the countless recommendation made by the Truth and Justice Commission, which for many years now have largely remained in the drawer without any meaningful implementation.

[00:02:02]This is precisely why, Madam Speaker, timelines, interim reporting and clear reform objectives are absolutely essential. The terms of reference under section 4 are extraordinarily broad, Madam Speaker, and no country embarking on serious constitutional reform have left such a process so entirely open-ended. In fact, when we examine the comparable constitutional reform processes across the Commonwealth, virtually all of these countries had imposed strict timelines upon the upon their own respective constitutional review commissions. For example, Madam Speaker, Australia, it embarked on a complete constitutional review and had set 2.5 years, 2 and a half years for as a deadline. Barbados [laughter] 6 months for its parliamentary reform and 15 months for its constitutional reform.

[00:03:03]Tanzania the Gambia 18 months for deep constitutional reforms. Kenya 12 months Madam Speaker Maicius should not become the exception. And this is why Madam Speaker I humbly suggest three things.

[00:03:20]First that there is an interim report dealing with the less complex reforms within the next 3 to 6 months. Then after that periodic interim report if necessary and finally and that is the most important a final report within a maximum of 18 months as from the inception of the commission so as to allow government madam speaker to finalize draft constitutional amendments by the end of next year and bring constitutional amendments to parliament by at least at latest mid 2028.

[00:04:00]Otherwise, there's a risk that this entire process ultimately produces nothing more than a PR exercise. Once the commission has completed its work, Madame Speaker, in my opinion, it no longer has a reset. It should become funus official stand dissolved thereafter. Otherwise, this commission would risk becoming yet again another permanent institution with near no clear point, no nuclear end point, no meaningful implementation outcome, a money pit for endless endless wastage of public funds. Madam Speaker, in my view, there are two different categories of reform to be brought in section 4. When you we look at the objects of section 4, some reforms genuinely require deep constitutional reflection, expert consultation and broad national consensus. Others are already mature, already been studied and capable of implementation immediately in the very short term. And that is why I believe, Madam Speaker, that this bill is making a fundamental mistake because section 4 as it stands throws everything together in one enormous constitutional basket which risk paralyzing reforms which could and should be implemented rapidly. The longerterm reforms are speaker. These reforms include for example the electoral system, reform of our electoral system to introduce proportional representation, more equitable delimin deminitation of constituencies, the right to recall, anti-defection provision, political financing, strengthening of safeguards of the electoral process. These I believe is it falls in the category of the long-term reforms. These also include the review of the DPP and of the institution, new generation rights, the rights of nature, environment, ecological rights, the enshrinement of the values of peace, justice, and liberty. All of that freedom of information in my view are complex constitutional questions affecting the very architecture of the state itself.

[00:06:23]And therefore they would justify the serious consultation, the expert constitutional work, the comparative analysis and the broad national participation.

[00:06:42]of endless consultation. Some reforms are already matured, widely discussed, and capable of parallel legislative implement implementation immediately.

[00:06:53]Those include the creation of the new court of appeal and a constitutional division of the Supreme Court, the stronger protections for fundamental rights, the strengthening of the constitutional right to privacy, the senior appointments committee, senior official appointments committee, the disability protections and inclusions, the mandatory holding of local elections, and the reforms to the public appeal bodies tribunal. In my view, three to six months would be more than sufficient for the commission to issue, albeit on an interim basis, a report on those. Madam Speaker, let me begin now with the judiciary. The government program states at paragraph 58, a superior court of appeal as recommended in Lord Makai's report will be established. However, when you read section 4K of this bill, it merely refers to the creation of a court of appeal within the Supreme Court. And there is a huge difference.

[00:08:03]This is not at all what Lord Makai had proposed. He proposed a distinct independent institutionally separate court of appeal with its own judges, its own staff. Why? to strengthen judicial independence to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary and to improve the quality and consistency of appalate decision. Lord Makai himself observed that the present system where judges frequently hear appeals against decisions of their colleagues within the same court structure could create at least the perception that judges may consciously or unconsciously stand by each other. These are not my words.

[00:08:46]These are Lord Makai's words. Therefore, Madame Speaker, government whether it genuinely intends or not to implement Lord Makai's recommendation here what it is doing, it is bringing merely a diluted version of it because the wording that has been chosen within as opposed to superior makes all the difference. Madam Speaker, as regard the proposed constitutional division, I fully agree, Madam Speaker, that it should ideally derive its authority directly from the Constitution itself, unlike ordinary divisions of the Supreme Court as we have today. But both reforms, our speaker, both reforms should not simply be buried within a constitutional process that may last years on years and should be taken swiftly. Madam Speaker, the right to privacy as regards the right the strengthening of constitutional right to privacy as it stands under section 9 of the constitution. It is now more than urgent and necessary more than ever to come with appropriate protection and to now encompass communications, personal data data and digital privacy rights.

[00:10:03]But what is equally important and urgent for government, Madam Speaker, is to proceed in parallel right now with specific legislation, regulating state surveillance, interception of communication, monitoring powers and criminal sanctions, and that is the very important part for misuse and abuse thereof. Most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Madam Speaker, already have such legislations in place. I said last time in the UK the investigatory powers act 2016 in other countries of the commonwealth small islands like Mauritius Jamaica Barbados St. Lucia Trida and Tobago St. Kits and Navis you have the interception and communications act Maitius should not lag decades behind and now is more than ever important to do so. Madam Speaker, provisional charges. The daily abuse by investigative authority of the system of provisional charges, Madam Speaker, remains one of the greatest injustices affected ordinary cit citizen of this country. The system of arrest first, investigate later cannot continue indefinitely. There are reportedly, Madam Speaker, up to 205,000 ongoing inquiries by the police as at 30 June 2025 unresolved inquiries according to the director of audit. many of whom have laid prosecution provisional charges upon accused parties who've seen their rights of movement restricted travel bans and mandatory reporting obligations to police stations being imposed upon them. Many person Madam Speaker remained provisionally charged for years without resolution. I myself have a PQ on this issue coming next Tuesday address to the attorney general. The police and criminal justice bill promised by this government which has been collecting dust since 2012 can no longer sit in the ages drawer. But now speaker the electoral reform one of the most sensitive constitutional issues. Ever since independence, successive governments have repeatedly promised deep electoral reforms and I fully accept that broad consultation is necessary.

[00:12:28]The bill refers to political financing, anti-defectionection provisions, right to recall, strengthening of powers and independence of the electoral commissioner. It remains silent however on other central pillars of the reform.

[00:12:44]In his speech, the honorable prime minister did refer to proportional representation and to the electoral reform, but those appear nowhere in the bill, Madame Speaker. And these matters are far too important to remain vague or merely implied.

[00:13:02]There is also other fundamental issues that needs uh to be taken that of a fairer, more balanced and more equitable delimination of constituencies in terms of geographical size and voter population. That issue has received very little attention so far, yet it is an essential component of any serious electoral reform. Madam Speaker, the DPP's independence. I appreciate the words of the prime minister on the role played by the leader of the PMSD in defending the independence of the office of the DPP. History cannot be rewritten.

[00:13:45]Madam Speaker, Sergey Donju himself knew perhaps more than anyone else the dangers that arise when prosecutorial powers fall under the political influence and control of the government of the day. Who can forget, Madam Speaker, the events of 1989? Who can forget when Serguval was arrested and persecuted for purely political motives?

[00:14:12]Who can forget how the prosecutoal machinery of the office of the DPP had become relentlessly focused upon securing his convictions at all cost for political ends. Madame speaker, who can forget that the DPP at that time then became attorney general. Madame speaker, the prime minister may not know himself, but the commissioner of police at that time and the person who had presided over inquiry had later come to apologize in person to Sagon for the so did for their roles in that sorted affairs. And those are the things that profoundly marked the PMSD and deeply reinforced our con conviction as to the absolute necessity for prosectorial independence.

[00:15:04]And years later, Zavich but not alone.

[00:15:07]And all the members of the PMSD, first time in the history of this country, all 12 ministers, MPs and private parliamentary secretaries resigned in solidarity. All 12. I myself was deputy speaker and I resigned because that is how we feel about the independence of the DPP and without the resignation of all 12. If it had been just a few of us, then it would have changed nothing to it would have changed nothing to uh the s of the DPP then and the DPP now who would surely not have been in office to date. So that is what deprive government of it quarter majority that collective resignation.

[00:16:01]Madam speaker, why is that? Because whatever the flaws of an individual DPP as a human being and we are all flawed, it is infinitely preferable, Madam Speaker, to have an independent DPP than one operating under the whims, pressures and crapes of government. Madam Speaker, I will please >> the last point and I conclude electoral college. The amendment has been circulated by the prime minister. Madam Speaker, I think that I failed to see, Madam Speaker, how the appointment of the president through an electoral college would derive greater legitimacy than direct acceptance by the electoral electorate itself. party should instead, Madam Speaker, instead be compelled prior to election day to disclose the names of the persons proposed to occupy the offices of President, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and perhaps also the Minister of Finance. That in my respectful opinion would be far more democratic and transparent. Madam Speaker, to conclude, there are many issues to talk on flaws of this bill. There is no quorum, no qualification criteria, no voting mechanism, no true independence stated expressly from government. But be that as it may, time is of the essence, like this commission's work, I do not doubt government's good intention in bringing forward this bill. But Madam Speaker, good intentions alone do not produce constitutional reforms. Implementation does. That is why I reiterate my proposals that the be the bill be amended now to impose a strict deadline of 18 months.

[00:17:50]First of all, to come with a final report to require interim and the final report to be made public to be made public duty on the president to make the report public for the report to be laid on the table of the National Assembly and be subject of debate by this house for clarity of section 4K for in relation to the superiority and independence of the court of appeal as well as what I said express provision for the reform of our electoral system.

[00:18:20]This commission, Madam Speaker, to conclude and I thank you >> cannot become a shield >> especially as you can give your amendment amendments to >> Yes. Yes. This commission m speaker cannot become a shield behind which government hides if it ultimately fails to deliver upon the clear the clear and unequivocal promises of constitutional and electoral reform made in 2024.

[00:18:48]They gave this government a mandate to to deliver and that is ultimately with what this government will be just about.

[00:18:59]>> Okay.

[00:18:59]>> Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[00:19:01]>> Yes, honorable Junior Minister Parapen.

[00:19:07]I'm trying to be as lenient as I can to everyone.

[00:19:12]I'm noting the time.

[00:19:15]>> Madame President, Chief Noie. Excuse me. Excuse [laughter] Papa, Madame President, Please note.

[00:20:36]Statue of Republic General, Prevention of Terrorism Act.

[00:21:19]President President the conjunct political review commission bill.

[00:22:06]The constitutional review commission.

[00:22:54]process.

[00:23:06]Mad President Trump.

[00:23:30]technocrat invalid popular Constitutional Review Commission Bill Massive.

[00:24:30]Madame President party politicial.

[00:25:11]Delmo Park leaders respective Reform systemic party.

[00:26:06]in Republic. The Morice administr Republic mayor Fore examiner.

[00:27:12]Resistance alternative resistance.

[00:27:40]Fore movement.

[00:28:19]Proposition, the public interest litigation, environmental and land use appeal tribunal.

[00:28:45]Wetlands category cut inch.

[00:29:22]merits.

[00:29:24]President class actions.

[00:30:06]direct.

[00:30:11]Wakashu party.

[00:30:41]In essence, since the applicants are solely relying on the basis of affidavit of their attorney at law who is acting in his capacity as mate adm. Their interests are barely sufficient and they are in effect entering a class action or a public interest litigation which is a procedure unknown to our legal system.

[00:31:35]Japanese actions.

[00:31:51]Madame Speaker, the bill has the potential to revolutionize our society.

[00:31:57]Its scope is farreaching and can be split into three core categories.

[00:32:01]Firstly, rights expansion. Secondly, institutional and jud judicial restructuring and thirdly political integrity.

[00:32:13]Enshrining rights to the environment, technology, health, and education moves Maitius from a framework of purely negative rights to positive rights. The 1968 Constitution is a classic first generation document. It focuses primarily on negative liberties, what the state cannot do to its citizens, prohibiting the state from arbitrarily arresting you, censoring you, or seizing your property. The proposed amendments under section 41A introduce new generation rights. This alters the social contract entirely.

[00:33:00]Citizens are no longer just individuals whom the state must leave alone. They become stakeholders who have a constitutional right to demand state action on environmental health, digital privacy and equitable public services.

[00:33:20]It also redefineses the concept of who hold rights.

[00:33:26]For the last 58 years, Mician law has viewed the environment through an anthropocentric lens. Nature is prop property to be managed or exploited by humans. Granting nature its own constitutional rights shifts the nation's legal foundations from an ego-driven model to an ecoddriven model. It places Maitius on the absolute frontier of global constitutional innovation.

[00:33:59]The bill also proposes to rewire the power mechanics.

[00:34:04]To use an IT analogy, a true version upgrade fixes the design flows of the original software.

[00:34:14]The 1968 constitution left several loopholes that allowed for the centralization of political power.

[00:34:23]The bill targets some of these vulnerabilities by recommending a senior officials appointment committee. It dilutes, yes, it dilutes the prime minister's absolute discretion over the appointment of heads of crucial public institutions and that is a very welcome move. Also, by considering new provisions for anti-defection, political financing, transparency, and the groundbreaking right to recall, it could usher a new era for the political clause to not treat the five-year mandate as a blank check given by the electorate.

[00:35:13]And it significantly alters the accountability of the political class.

[00:35:20]Madam Speaker, on Sunday 10th March 2012, more than 14 years ago, on the eve of the 44th celebration of independence of Maitius and the 20th year anniversary of our republic, a march was held in the streets of Port Le.

[00:35:45]It was called Laamos Dismos and Novo Republic.

[00:35:51]Hundreds of citizens rallied and took to the streets to demand constitutional change.

[00:35:58]This march was initiated by the following organizations.

[00:36:04]Resistance alternative blocks awake from the University of Mauritius.

[00:36:14]the General Workers Federation SIP and the Center for Alton Research and Studies.

[00:36:35]fundamentalist democracy participology official resistance alternative.

[00:37:08]President Lismouse and Republic Martin collectivism.

[00:37:55]massage.

[00:38:00]We have a dream.

[00:38:22]Yes, back in 2012, we had a dream and today I am proud to say that this dream for a new constitution and a second republic of Mauritius is still very much alive.

[00:38:38]Thank you.

[00:38:39]>> Thank you. Thank you.

[00:38:42]Yes, we will break for half an hour.