The Police (Amendment) Bill (No. XXV of 2026)

POLICE (AMENDMENT) BILL 2026 (NO. XXV OF 2026)

Independent Legal Commentary: Public Security Must Remain Subject to the Rule of Law

The protection of public safety is a fundamental responsibility of the State. However, the exercise of extraordinary policing powers must remain subject to legal certainty, necessity, proportionality and accountability.

The Police (Amendment) Bill 2026 raises three important concerns.

First, the definition of an offensive weapon.

The expression "offensive weapon" is not new to Mauritian criminal law.

Section 140(2) of the Criminal Code already defines an offensive weapon for the purposes of that section. Section 2 of the Public Gatherings Act contains the corresponding definition, which is expressly adopted by section 29(3) of the Criminal Code (Supplementary) Act.

However, section 13D of the Police Act uses the expression without expressly incorporating any of these existing statutory definitions.

This is a matter of legislative precision. Where a criminal offence may carry substantial fines and penal servitude, Parliament should make the applicable definition clear.

The definition is broad enough to cover articles ordinarily used for legitimate purposes. Their possession must therefore be assessed in its proper context, including lawful authority, reasonable excuse and the circumstances of possession.

Second, the geographical scope of curfew powers.

The amendment to section 13C extends the Commissioner's power from a specific locality to the whole of Mauritius or any part thereof.

Such an extension may be justified during a serious national emergency, but it must not become an unrestricted administrative power.

The legislation should establish safeguards concerning the necessity, duration, geographical extent, publication and review of curfew orders.

Third, the protection of ordinary citizens.

Section 13C does not expressly provide a general reasonable-excuse defence for breach of a curfew order. A permit system alone may not adequately address urgent medical emergencies, unforeseen circumstances or other genuine necessities.

Furthermore, the increase in fines under section 13D to between Rs 50,000 and Rs 100,000 raises questions of proportionality, particularly when a mandatory minimum may restrict judicial discretion.

The State must be firm against criminal violence. But legislation must distinguish genuine threats to public security from ordinary citizens acting out of necessity.

A strong State is not one that exercises power without limits. It is one that exercises power within the law, with accountability and respect for human dignity.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Section / clause: Section 13D

Proposed amendment:
RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE SAFEGUARDS

Although the Police (Amendment) Bill was passed by the National Assembly on 20 October 2026, the following recommendations remain relevant to any subsequent legislative review.

1. Expressly define "offensive weapon" in the Police Act

Amend section 2 or section 13D of the Police Act to provide an express reference to the definition contained in section 2 of the Public Gatherings Act.

The drafting should also take account of section 140(2) of the Criminal Code and section 29(3) of the Criminal Code (Supplementary) Act, ensuring consistency across the criminal-law framework.

Rationale: Legal definitions governing criminal liability must be accessible, consistent and unambiguous.

2. Introduce express safeguards for nationwide curfews

Amend section 13C to require every curfew order to specify:

- The circumstances justifying the measure.
- The geographical area covered.
- The commencement time and expiry time.
- The reasons why a less restrictive measure would be insufficient.
- The conditions governing any extension or renewal.

The legislation should provide for a defined maximum initial duration, reasoned renewal, prompt publication and parliamentary reporting for nationwide curfews.

Rationale: Exceptional restrictions on movement must remain necessary, proportionate, time-limited and open to scrutiny.

3. Protect reasonable and unavoidable conduct

Introduce an express reasonable-excuse provision for breaches of section 13C, including genuine medical emergencies, essential caregiving, urgent protection of life and other circumstances of necessity.

Such protection should not depend exclusively on obtaining a permit in advance where doing so is impracticable.

Rationale: Criminal liability should not arise merely because an individual was unable to obtain prior administrative permission during an emergency.

4. Preserve proportionality in criminal penalties

Review the mandatory minimum fine of Rs 50,000 under section 13D and expressly preserve sufficient judicial discretion to consider the nature of the weapon, the circumstances of possession, culpability and mitigating factors.

Rationale: Penalties should reflect the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the case.

5. Strengthen transparency and accountability

Provide for accessible publication of curfew orders, clear public guidance on exemptions, administrative records of enforcement actions and effective access to judicial review.

Rationale: Public confidence in law enforcement is strengthened when extraordinary powers are exercised transparently and remain subject to independent scrutiny

Reasons and expected impact:
Mauritius does not have to choose between public security and fundamental rights.

We can protect society against violence while maintaining legal certainty, judicial safeguards and respect for constitutional freedoms.

Security without accountability risks becoming arbitrary power. Security governed by the rule of law strengthens democracy.