Everyone knows that human rights are universal and unalienable. Since late last week, it also seems that they?re expendable, at least to the extent of no longer warranting a ministry of their own. If most pundits agree that the recent cabinet shuffle was motivated primarily by political considerations, they are somewhat less decided about the significance of the elimination of the ministry of Human rights, the very same ministry that prompted, to a great extent, the shuffle.

In order to gauge the importance of its disappearance, one first has to take stock of what was accomplished during its three years of existence. The former Human rights minister, Rama Valayden, can boast a number of accomplishments during his mandate. A former district court was converted into a human rights center; a hotline for human rights complaints was set up, civil debts were abolished; police cells were standardized according to human rights norms and the practice of arresting people on weekends was interrupted, to name but a few. Now that the ministry is gone, who will be entrusted with the mission of ensuring that the State does its utmost to ensure that human rights are respected?

The Ombudsperson for children, Shirin Aumeruddy-Cziffra, believes that it behooves civil society, rather than the State, to ensure human rights are protected ?The very question of having such a ministry has often been questioned by human rights activists around the world. One can understand this position, as it is really the civil society, which naturally has the capacity to ensure that human rights are respected. Often they have to do this against the government of the day. So, depending on the level of human rights consciousness in a given country or not it may be positive to have such a ministry as long as its role is clear?.

Rama Valayden explained to l?express yesterday that the ministry no longer exists in name, but that the Prime minister?s office will refer any abuses to the attorney general. The reasons behind this decision are evident. After the political maelstrom unleashed by Rama Valayden?s intervention in a series of police cases, the Prime minister probably wishes to keep a tighter rein on proceedings to ensure that such scandals are avoided in the future.

In terms of protection of human rights however, the success of this strategy is likely to be far more mitigated. How many people know, for example, that they have to address any complaints to the PMO? How must these complaints be formulated? To whom? The answers to such questions will have to be forthcoming and, more importantly, disseminated to the public at large, if the PMO?s newfound human rights vocation is to be of any use.

One common mistake has been to confuse the prerogatives of the ministry of Human rights with those of the recently created ministry of Consumer protection and Citizen?s charter. A quick perusal of the Citizen?s charter reveals that its role consists mainly of creating ?a society in which each citizen has every prospect of a better quality of life?. However laudable this objective may be, it does not cater for the protection of human rights. It aims, for example, ?to keep under continuous review the parliamentary service to enable members of Parliament to discharge their duties in the best of conditions? and ?to create the necessary service to enable the officers to provide?, amongst others.

A prominent actor in the field of human rights opines that the ministry of Consumer protection and Citizen?s charter is broadly based on ?the British model? and its Office of the Parliamentary commissioner. For his part, the barrister and member of Human rights NGO Justice, Jean-Claude Bibi, feels that there is ?an important distinction between the rights of Mauritian citizens and human rights, which are universal?. He hopes that the authorities have ?a comprehensive philosophy for the protection of all rights?, even those contained in international conventions that are not legally-binding.

<I>?One common mistake has been to confuse the prerogatives of the ministry of Human rights with those of the recently created ministry of Consumer protection and Citizen?s charter.?</I>

The Ombudsperson for children has her own opinion on the way forward. ?I think that such a ministry was purely symbolical. The best thing would be that we should have just a full-fledged ministry to look after human rights, whether they are civil, political, economic, social or cultural which includes women?s rights, children's rights, etc. In the 1970s and 1980s, the issue of women?s rights was a major one and needed to be tackled urgently. A lot has now been done. Then children's issues came to the forefront too. But ideally we must look at human rights as being indivisible, interdependent and inalienable. Since we are now at a crossroad, it is also time to rethink the role of the ministry of Women's rights as a facilitating ministry and not as a service provider.?

People who feel that their human rights have been violated can, of course, address any grievances to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and to the Ombudsman. Yet one has to concede that the elimination of the ministry of Human rights is not necessarily the best way to promote the knowledge and respect of these fundamental rights. And democracy is all the poorer for it.