Any proposal to reverse the minimum age protection would require a demonstrated necessity, a careful proportionality assessment and credible evidence that the objective of public safety cannot adequately be achieved through the existing framework or less restrictive reforms. The central legal issue is whether lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 12 years would constitute an appropriate response to juvenile delinquency, particularly in the context of increasing public concern about children becoming involved in violence and criminal activities.

The international standards point towards maintaining or increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility, rather than reducing it. However, it is important to distinguish a binding treaty obligation from the authoritative recommendations of international human rights bodies.

The principal considerations are:

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends a minimum age of at least 14 years and expressly discourages reductions;

Mauritius already has legislation allowing authorities to intervene when children below 14 are suspected of committing offences, without prosecuting them;

Criminal prosecution of younger children raises significant questions of psychological maturity, rehabilitation, proportionality and long-term public safety;

International research provides evidence supporting diversion and rehabilitative measures, particularly for children at lower risk of reoffending.

1. Existing law in Mauritius

The Children’s Act 2020 of Mauritius (Act No. 13 of 2020) represents a significant reform of the country’s juvenile justice system. Section 49 expressly provides: “No child under the age of 14 shall be prosecuted for any criminal offence.”

Section 50 creates a separate procedure for dealing with children below that age who are suspected of having committed offences. Instead of criminal detention and prosecution, the law provides for a police enquiry, referral to the Probation and Aftercare Service, assessment by a probation officer and psychologist, and appropriate support or intervention.

Therefore, the existing legislation does not create a situation in which children under 14 are beyond the reach of the authorities. It adopts a different legal response based on their age and developmental needs.

2. Internationally accepted standards

A. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Mauritius is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). However, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its General Comment No. 24 (2019), paragraphs 21–22, provides authoritative guidance.

The Committee:

Identifies 14 as the most common minimum age internationally;

Encourages States to set their minimum age at 14 or higher;

Commends States that adopt higher ages, such as 15 or 16;

Urges States not to reduce their existing minimum age.

B. African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child

Mauritius ratified the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child on 14 February 1992. Article 17(4) requires States to establish a minimum age of criminal responsibility but does not specify a number. Article 17(3) identifies reformation, family reintegration and social rehabilitation as essential objectives of child justice. The proposed age of 12 would meet that particular African regional threshold, but fall below the UN Committee’s recommended standard.

3. Substantive reasons against lowering the age in Mauritius

A. Psychological development and criminal capacity

Criminal responsibility involves more than proving that a child physically committed a prohibited act. Questions arise about the child’s appreciation of wrongfulness, understanding of consequences, ability to control impulses and capacity to participate effectively in legal proceedings. This creates a material distinction between an adult who deliberately engages in organised criminal activity and a young adolescent whose behaviour may be shaped by impulsivity, peer pressure or exploitation.

B. Lowering the age is not established as an effective deterrent

A major objection concerns the absence of demonstrated public-safety benefits from subjecting younger children to formal criminal proceedings. A separate review of police-led diversion reported modest reductions in future offending among lower-risk young people compared with traditional processing.

The studies have, however, raised a serious evidential question: what reliable evidence demonstrates that criminalising children two years earlier will reduce serious juvenile offending?

C. Risk of criminalisation instead of rehabilitation

Early criminal prosecution may expose children to stigmatisation, disrupted education and contact with more experienced offenders. The relevant concern is not simply the immediate punishment but the effect of criminal processing on the child’s subsequent development.

D. Mauritius already possesses an intervention framework

An especially strong legal argument concerns the existing Children’s Act. Sections 49 and 50 have been in force since 24 January 2022. Section 50 requires a police enquiry, referral for professional assessment and provision for counselling, therapy and a written intervention plan involving the child and the parents.

Further, sections 41 and 42 address children displaying serious behavioural concerns. Where statutory conditions are satisfied, the Children’s Court can make preventive intervention orders, including requirements for school attendance, counselling, behavioural restrictions, supervision and, in appropriate circumstances, institutional placement.

The legislative framework therefore already permits meaningful intervention without reducing the minimum age of prosecution. A significant policy question is whether these existing measures are being implemented effectively, adequately funded and properly supervised.

E. Greater protection against adult exploitation

There is also a danger that children become instruments of adult criminality. In this respect, section 28 of the Children’s Act 2020 provides that any person who causes or incites a child to perform an unlawful act commits an offence and is liable to the sentence provided for that unlawful act.

Where adults recruit, incite or exploit children to commit violence, vandalism or other offences, investigations can therefore address the responsibility of those adults rather than concentrating solely on the age of the children concerned.

4. Arguments advanced in favour of reduction

The issue also raises legitimate public-safety concerns. Supporters of a lower age may argue that some children between 12 and 13 participate in serious violence, that victims require an effective response, and that the existing welfare system may not provide sufficient control over persistent dangerous behaviour. The State can also strengthen protective supervision and responses to serious violent behaviour while retaining the age of 14.

5. Alternative reforms for Mauritius

Rather than focusing exclusively on the age threshold, Parliament could examine measures to strengthen the operation of the existing Children’s Act through:

Effective enforcement of section 50: ensure prompt referrals, psychological assessment, intervention plans and systematic follow-up for children suspected of serious offending;

Family and school intervention: strengthen parenting assistance, school counselling, truancy prevention, youth mentoring and targeted social support;

Specialised responses to serious violence: develop appropriately supervised welfare-based responses for children presenting serious risks, with judicial safeguards, periodic review and protection of victims.

Restorative justice: where suitable and voluntary, introduce structured opportunities for acknowledgment of harm, restitution, reconciliation and rehabilitation without criminal conviction.

Evidence-based legislative review: publish age-disaggregated statistics for offences involving children, including the nature and seriousness of offences, repeat offending, available services and outcomes of interventions.

6. Conclusions for legislative consideration

The legal and empirical material provides substantial grounds for questioning a reduction from 14 to 12. The Children’s Act 2020 embodies a policy of child protection, responsibility, intervention and rehabilitation. Its enactment brought Mauritius closer to the standards subsequently reinforced by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Before any amendment is introduced, Parliament could usefully require an independent assessment of the implementation of sections 41, 42, 49 and 50, as well as a formal child-rights impact assessment. The strongest legal distinction is this:

A child being below the age of criminal responsibility does not mean that the State must remain passive in the face of serious offending. The law may require intervention, protection, supervision and rehabilitation without resorting to criminal prosecution.

Accordingly, the evidence-based legislative alternatives extend beyond a simple choice between lowering the age and tolerating juvenile offending. Mauritius already has a statutory foundation for early intervention. The central question is whether that foundation is being implemented effectively enough to protect both children and society. The NGO “Dis Moi” has issued a communiqué on this issue which deserves reconsideration.