Parliament has adopted its most ambitious domestic abuse law to date, broadening protections far beyond physical violence. Yet the message running through this piece, echoed most clearly by the two human rights advocates featured below, is that the law is only a starting point: success now hinges on training, awareness and a shift in public attitudes.

The reform

Mauritius has adopted the Domestic Abuse Bill (No. VIII of 2026), repealing the decades-old Protection from Domestic Violence Act. Introduced on June 23 by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Gender Equality and Family Welfare, Arianne Navarre-Marie, and passed on July 10 – with a very rare cross-party consensus –, it expands the definition of abuse to include psychological, emotional, economic, digital and coercive violence, alongside unlawful confinement, property damage and sexual exploitation.

Victims gain access to protection and exclusion orders that let courts remove perpetrators from the family home regardless of ownership, plus ancillary alimony orders, expedited and remote hearings, and in camera proceedings to protect confidentiality. Children are protected through the ‘best interests of the child’ principle, while a broader definition of ‘aggrieved persons’ extends safeguards to elderly and other vulnerable relatives, notably by criminalising the withholding of pensions or financial resources. Perpetrators face tighter bail conditions, harsher penalties for breaching court orders, and may be compelled into rehabilitation and counselling.

‘Never again should a woman die in this country despite all the warning signs being flashed in plain sight.’ Arianne Navarre-Marie argued in her address that manipulation and coercion deserve the same legal weight as physical violence. The Prime Minister, Navin Ramgoolam, called the reform a necessary evolution of the legal system. ‘Privacy can and should never be a refuge for violence (…) as affection is not a property right, dependence is not consent.’ Attorney General, Gavin Glover, pointed to the most transformative change in courtroom questioning – from ‘Where are the bruises?’ to ‘Is there control, coercion, fear?’ – and placing victims’ safety ahead of administrative delay. Civil society welcomes the bill while flagging its limits. For Mélanie Valère-Cicéron, founder of Passerelle, ‘emergency shelters cannot be the end point – survivors need long-term housing and real financial independence’. Darmen Appadoo, president of SOS Papa, insists the law must stay gender-neutral and protect male victims equally. The collective Fam an Mars praises the recognition of psychological and coercive abuse, but says institutional culture remains a major obstacle, and calls for ‘police to be trained to recognise abuse that leaves no visible injury’. Legal analyst Mokshda Pertaub sees the criminalisation of economic abuse as ‘one of the bill’s breakthroughs, but law enforcement officers need training to identify it’.

Two voices, One warning

In Focus spoke to two leading human rights advocates (l’express of Friday 17 & Sunday 19 July) Their views, reached independently, reach the same conclusion. Now that the law has been adopted, how do we ensure that measures are taken to make it work?

Anushka Virahsawmy, director of Gender Links : ‘Legislation alone cannot transform society’

For Anushka Virahsawmy, the bill is the culmination of nearly 13 years of civil society advocacy against a law that focused narrowly on married couples sharing a home, but overlooked unmarried partners, same-sex couples and extended family members living under one roof. She calls the recognition of coercive control – alongside psychological, economic and digital abuse – a major breakthrough, since threats, isolation and financial domination can be as destructive as wounds and blows. She also welcomes the government’s commitment to amend the Criminal Code to include marital rape and femicide as serious crimes. But the director of Gender Links repeatedly stresses that ‘legislation alone cannot transform society’. Public awareness campaigns, education and ongoing professional training will determine whether victims recognise abuse and understand their rights – a responsibility she extends to schools, workplaces, NGOs, public institutions and the media.

Responding to claims that the law mainly protects women, she stresses that the new law protects everyone; and Gender Links now speaks of ‘victims of violence’ rather than just women. Beyond legal protection, she argues for empowerment over dependency. Gender Links’ Safe Haven Halfway Home, having supported some 500 women and children for nearly nine years, does not just shelter survivors but helps them secure employment and financial autonomy. She also flags that many victims still don’t understand how protection orders work, and that police training, while many officers already perform well, needs continuous reinforcement. ‘People must know their rights if the reform is to make a real difference.’

Satyajit Boolell, chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) : ‘Education, enforcement and training must follow’

The former Director of Public Prosecutions says the bill firmly addresses domestic violence as a serious human rights violation, aligning Mauritius with major international instruments by recognising emotional, psychological, sexual and economic abuse alongside the physical. Yet he cautions against expecting immediate change. Laws set frameworks, he says, but real transformation depends on enforcement, institutional capacity and shifting public attitudes: ‘Where the letter of law leads, society may one day follow’, results, he warns, may take months or years to show. The Commission will focus on public education, so victims understand their rights, while working to rebuild trust in law enforcement, so more victims come forward.

Protection orders only work if victims understand them and institutions enforce them consistently – hence the NHRC’s continuing awareness campaigns. On victims withdrawing complaints under pressure, he insists decisions must be free of intimidation, with counselling and legal support available, while investigations can continue where independent evidence exists; and rehabilitation, he stresses, should complement rather than replace criminal accountability. Criminalising economic abuse – often devastating for vulnerable victims dependent on relatives – is noteworthy, provided the public is aware and willing to report it. Looking ahead, Satyajit Boolell argues institutional reform must go beyond legislation, calling for greater investment in counselling, psychologists, probation officers, social workers and training for police, prosecutors and magistrates: a coordinated response involving the justice system, healthcare, social services and civil society.

Conclusion

The Domestic Abuse Bill is one of the most comprehensive reforms Mauritius has adopted against domestic violence, broadening definitions and modernising judicial tools. But the message from Parliament, civil society and rights advocates is remarkably consistent: passing the law was only the first step. Its real impact will depend on informed citizens, trained professionals, resourced institutions – and a society ready to treat domestic abuse no longer as a private matter, but as a fundamental violation of human rights.