By Lakshita Kanhiya, LLD Candidate, Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
A silence that is becoming harder to justify
For a country that frequently presents itself as a model democracy and a defender of the rule of law, Mauritius’ prolonged silence before Africa’s principal human rights body is increasingly difficult to explain. The State’s periodic report under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (and relevant protocols) has been due since 2024. While Mauritius prepared and submitted its 11th Periodic Report under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights covering the period from August 2020 to April 2024, it failed to appear before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Commission / Commission), the treaty body mandated to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the Charter to present it and engage in constructive dialogue with the Commission, so that the Commission can provide its feedback through issuing concluding observations. Mauritius was listed on the agenda of both the 81st Ordinary Session held in November 2024 and the 85th Ordinary Session held in October 2025 in The Gambia. On both occasions, the State delegation did not show up. As 2026 begins, the question can no longer be postponed, is Mauritius ready to account for its human rights record to the African Commission, or will it once again remain absent?
Understanding the African Commission
The African Commission is the primary quasi-judicial human rights organ of the African Union, established under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter/ Charter), often referred to as the Banjul Charter. Its mandate goes beyond abstract promotion of human rights. Since its establishment in 1987, the Commission has been mandated to interpret the Charter, examine state reports, consider complaints brought by individuals, groups and NGOs, and issue recommendations to States on how to align domestic law and practice with regional human rights standards. Mauritius ratified the African Charter in 1992. In doing so, it accepted not only the substantive obligation to respect, protect, and fulfil the rights contained in the Charter, but also the procedural duty to report periodically on how those rights are being implemented in practice. The full acceptance of the processes of the African Commission by Mauritius is further illustrated by the nomination and election of at least two (2) Mauritian nationals to serve as Commissioners since 2007, one of who is currently a member of the African Commission, providing oversight over the human rights records of other African countries.
Mauritius’ uneven reporting record
A look at Mauritius’ reporting history reveals a pattern of engagement followed by long silences. Since ratification, Mauritius has submitted a limited number of reports, often covering several reporting cycles at once. The country submitted its 1st Periodic Report (1992–1994), followed by combined reports from the 2nd to the 5th reporting periods (1995–2008), the 6th to 8th Combined Report (2009–2015), and the 9th to 10th Combined Report (2016–2019). The 11th Periodic Report (2019–2024) was eventually submitted, but the State did not appear before the Commission to defend or discuss it. The African Charter envisages biennial reporting, not decade-long consolidation exercises. These delays are not merely technical oversights. Each missed or postponed appearance represents a lost opportunity for structured dialogue, peer scrutiny, and constructive recommendations tailored to Mauritian realities as measured against regional human standards that Mauritius has voluntarily agreed to abide by through ratification of the African Charter.
Why state reporting really matters
State reporting is the backbone of the African human rights system. It is the moment when governments are called upon to speak publicly about their laws, policies, and institutional practices, and to respond to questions posed by members of the African Commission who understand the region’s political, social, and economic complexities. State reporting also provides an opportunity for NGOs and other civil society groups in Mauritius to submit alternative reports to the African Commission to further shed light on the human rights situation on the ground in instances where the government of Mauritius does not present the full or accurate information in its report. When a State repeatedly fails to report or to appear, continental accountability is weakened. More importantly, it sends a troubling signal that African-owned human rights oversight is being treated as optional rather than integral to the rule of law.
Mauritius before the Commission: the complaints record
Mauritius’ engagement with the African Commission has not been limited to reporting. Over the years, several communications have been lodged against the State. These include cases such as Devendranath Hurnam v. Mauritius (decided on the merits - 2025), alongside other communications that were declared inadmissible, namely Johannes Jurie Botha v. Mauritius (2025), Digbeejaye Koonjul v. the Republic of Mauritius (2020), and Romy Goornah v. the Republic of Mauritius (2018). While the Commission’s decisions are recommendatory rather than punitive, they remain authoritative interpretations of the Charter, which states must comply with. A delayed or absent state report deprives both the Commission and Mauritian society of a holistic opportunity to address recurring concerns in a forward-looking and preventive manner.
Geneva, New York and the neglect of Banjul
Mauritius is generally diligent when it comes to engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva and New York. This engagement is important and should continue. Yet it raises a legitimate and uncomfortable question. Why does the African human rights system appear to receive less political attention? Is it because Geneva and New York carry greater diplomatic prestige, while Banjul does not occupy the same place on the global diplomatic map? Does proximity to donors, permanent missions, and international visibility shape where States choose to invest political energy? Turning a blind eye to the African system in favour of UN mechanisms risks reinforcing the perception that African institutions are secondary or dispensable. Yet the African Commission offers something the UN cannot, regionally grounded oversight, rooted in Africa’s histories, legal pluralism, and lived realities. Neglecting it undermines the project of African legal self-determination and presents an affront to the African Union’s long refrain of ‘African solutions to African problems’.
Civil society as a necessary counterweight
Civil society organisations play a central role in keeping the African human rights system alive. Through alternative or shadow reports, public statements, engagement with Commissioners, and national-level follow-up, civil society ensures that lived realities are not erased by official narratives. One of the most effective tools available to civil society is Observer Status before the African Commission. Observer Status allows organisations to attend sessions, make oral statements, submit written reports, and engage consistently with the Commission’s work. For Mauritian civil society, seeking Observer Status should be viewed as a strategic necessity, not an administrative luxury. In contexts where the State delays or disengages, civil society presence becomes even more critical in keeping Mauritius visible within the African human rights system.
2026 as a test of credibility
If Mauritius is serious about its human rights commitments, 2026 must be a turning point. This requires political clarity on timelines for engagement, meaningful consultation with civil society well before any appearance at the African Commission’s session, and a commitment to follow up on recommendations once the reporting dialogue takes place. Silence before the African Commission does not make scrutiny disappear, it merely postpones it. As Mauritius navigates 2026, the real question is no longer whether reporting is required, but whether the State is prepared to be accountable within the African human rights family it chose to join. The credibility of Mauritius’ human rights narrative depends on the answer.
