The recent turbulences in Mauritius have comprehensibly raised concerns about public order, community safety and individual, as well as collective responsibility. Acts of violence, intimidation and wilful damage to government or private property must be met with unequivocal condemnation, for such conduct has no place in a society founded upon the rule of law. The State bears a solemn and unequivocal responsibility to safeguard its citizens, uphold public order, investigate unlawful conduct with diligence and impartiality, and ensure that those responsible are brought to account through the due process of law.

Yet, the imperative to restore public order must not eclipse the need for measured legislative judgment, nor should the exigencies of the moment dictate the enduring legal framework governing the best interests of children. Reports of the possible use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in connection with the disturbances, alongside discussion of lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 12, raise distinct questions requiring careful and evidence-based consideration. The nature and legal basis of any charges brought in individual cases must be established by reference to the facts and applicable law, rather than conjecture or premature assumptions.

The matter is not whether children should be accountable for wrongdoing. It is whether the measures adopted to secure accountability are proportionate to the child’s age, the nature and gravity of the conduct in question, the circumstances in which it occurred, and, vitally, the child’s capacity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

A Legislative Framework Founded on Principle

During my tenure as the Minister responsible for child protection, I introduced three landmark measures: the Children’s Act 2020, the Children’s Court Act 2020 and the Child Sex Offender Register Act 2020. Enacted by the National Assembly in December 2020, following a long-drawn-out legislative journey spanning some 26 years, and brought into operation in January 2022, these landmark reforms represented a defining milestone in the advancement of children’s rights in Mauritius. They established a modernised framework for child protection, introduced specialised judicial mechanisms and reinforced the legal safeguards afforded to children, bringing our domestic legislation into closer alignment with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

They embodied a fundamental principle of justice: a child who comes into conflict with the law does not thereby cease to be a child, nor should the justice system lose sight of the vulnerability, developmental needs and potential for rehabilitation that distinguish childhood from adulthood. Section 49 of the Children’s Act establishes that a child below 14 shall not be prosecuted for a criminal offence. This safeguard was never intended to excuse wrongdoing, but to recognise that children are still developing and that the justice system must place equal emphasis on accountability, protection and rehabilitation.

Protecting the public and protecting children are not competing objectives. Properly designed, they reinforce one another. Any re-evaluation of this threshold should therefore identify the specific deficiency to be resolved, and explain why existing protective and justice mechanisms are insufficient.

When Public Disorder Is Mistaken for Terrorism

Anti-terrorism laws, which occupy an exceptional place in our legal landscape, are intended to deal with principally serious threats, and must therefore be applied with paramount caution. Their use must be justified by clear evidence that the legal requirements of a terrorism offence have been met. Public disorder, however serious or unacceptable, does not automatically amount to terrorism.

When a child is involved, investigators and prosecutors must carefully examine what the child actually did, the circumstances surrounding their actions, and whether they were pressured, encouraged or manipulated by others. These matters do not automatically excuse unlawful behaviour, but they are seminal to determining an appropriate legal response.

What clear legal grounds would justify invoking POTA rather than dealing with such offences under existing criminal laws? What safeguards will ensure that age, maturity and possible adult influence are properly considered? Moreover, where other criminal provisions are available, what necessity would justify having recourse to exceptional counter-terrorism measures? We must also consider the severe consequences of labelling our children as terrorists — a stigma that could follow them for life, undermine their future and jeopardise their chances of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Lowering the Age: What Is the Evidence?

Lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 12 would represent a significant shift in public policy and must therefore be guided by sound evidence, careful deliberation and compelling justification, rather than by arbitrary decisions or the pressures of the moment. In the statute book, the difference between 12 and 14 may seem paltry. Yet, in a child’s development, those two years can make an intense difference. At that age, children are still learning to distinguish right from wrong, understand the consequences of their actions, control their impulses and resist peer or other pressures.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its General Comment No. 24 (2019), recommends that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be no lower than 14 and unambiguously discourages countries from reducing an age already established at that level. Although this recommendation does not constitute a binding treaty, it carries substantial authority and deserves serious consideration, particularly as Mauritius is a State Party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Before proceeding with such a significant legislative amendment, have the relevant judicial, prosecutorial, law enforcement and child-protection authorities been adequately consulted? Has a comprehensive evaluation been undertaken to determine the possible consequences for children’s education, emotional well-being, rehabilitation and risk of recidivism? More fundamentally, what credible evidence — national or international — suggests that prosecuting children as young as 12 would deter violence?

Beyond the Child: Holding Those Who Exploit Them Accountable

Close consideration must also be given to the role of adults who may influence or exploit children for criminal purposes. Young people are particularly vulnerable to pressure, manipulation and encouragement from those who fully understand the consequences of their actions. Our existing child-protection legislation already provides for holding adults answerable where they cause or incite children to engage in unlawful conduct. Where children have been deliberately lured into unlawful activities, the law must look beyond their actions and hold accountable those who instigated, influenced or exploited them. True accountability cannot mean pursuing the youngest and most vulnerable while overlooking those who may have orchestrated their involvement. Protecting society demands that responsibility be placed where it properly belongs.

Implementation Before Reversal

No legislation is perfect, but legislation is not beyond review. The effectiveness of the Children’s Court, diversion and probation programmes, psychological support, family interventions, educational and vocational reintegration measures must be regularly reviewed and strengthened where necessary. However, we must be careful not to confuse failures in implementing the law with failures of the law itself. Where the real problem lies in inadequate resources, feeble enforcement or institutional shortcomings, the answer is to address those shortages, not to abandon the principles upon which the legislation was founded.

Victims deserve justice and citizens deserve safety; neither objective requires us to abandon a child-centred approach without compelling evidence.

The Vision That Guided Parliament’s Reforms

During the National Assembly debate on 15 December 2020, the then Prime Minister, Pravind Kumar Jugnauth, described the three Bills in terms that remain pertinent today: “We are debating today three important pieces of legislation which will have a far-reaching impact on our society for many years to come.”

Those words captured the long-term ambition of the reforms. Six years later, they invite a constructive question: what has fundamentally changed to justify reconsidering a safeguard that was carefully examined and deliberately enshrined in our legislation? Is the minimum age of criminal responsibility truly the problem, or should we first question whether the institutions entrusted with protecting and rehabilitating our children have been equipped with the requisite resources, support and means to fulfil their mandate? Before changing the law, we owe it to our children to establish whether the law has failed them, or whether we have failed to implement it effectively.

Legislative continuity must not preclude reform. Correspondingly, reform should be mortared in evidence, institutional experience and the principles upon which earlier legislative choices were founded.

A Moment for Measured Leadership

The State can and must respond firmly to violence without compromising fairness, proportionality or the particular protection that children deserve under the law. Firmness in upholding the law must never be confused with severity for its own sake. Before contemplating any reduction in the age of criminal responsibility, there must be a thorough, evidence-based review of its necessity and long-term consequences. Correspondingly, any consideration of prosecuting minors under counter-terrorism legislation demands the highest degree of legal scrutiny, with full respect for their best interests, fundamental rights and safeguards.

The true test of responsible governance is not how severely the State can punish, but how judiciously it can administer justice. The true measure of a nation’s strength lies not in the severity of its laws, but in the wisdom of its judgements, the fairness of its justice and, above all, its humanity towards the most vulnerable.