Riot or Terrorism? Where Does Mauritian Law Draw the Line?
Qs & As
By Lex
The arrest of dozens of people, including 17 minors, following recent civil unrest has raised questions about the government’s intention to invoke the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PoTA) 2002 against those allegedly involved. While maintaining public order is essential, the use of anti-terrorism legislation to address civil disturbances warrants careful scrutiny. Where does Mauritian law draw the line between a violent riot and an act of terrorism? What additional powers does PoTA grant the police, and what safeguards exist against its misuse? This Q&A examines the legal implications, individual rights and potential consequences for the rule of law and Mauritius’s international reputation.
* There have been reservations in legal circles about the government’s intention to use the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PoTA) 2002 to prosecute individuals involved in civil unrest and rioting, following the arrest of dozens of people, including 17 minors, since 13 October 2026. What is the legal distinction under Mauritian law between a violent riot and an act of terrorism?
Under Mauritian criminal jurisprudence, the law draws a clear distinction between acts of terrorism and offences arising from public disorder, such as a riot.
Terrorism is governed by the Prevention of Terrorism Act, where Section 3(2) sets out a comprehensive definition of an “act of terrorism”. Under Section 3(2), an act of terrorism is defined as an act which:
“(a) may seriously damage a country or an international organisation; and”
Additionally, the act must meet specific subjective intent or object criteria under paragraph (b). Namely, it must be an act that:
“(b) is intended or can reasonably be regarded as having been intended to —
(i) seriously intimidate a population;
(ii) unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act;
(iii) seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation; or
(iv) otherwise influence such government, or international organisation; and”
Furthermore, to qualify as an act of terrorism, the act must physically involve or result in specific severe consequences. Under paragraph (c), it must involve or cause:
“(c) (i) attacks upon a person’s life which may cause death;
(ii) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
(iii) kidnapping of a person;
(iv) extensive destruction to a government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property, likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
(v) the seizure of an aircraft, a ship or other means of public or goods transport;
(vi) the manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
(vii) the release of dangerous substances, or causing of fires, explosions or floods, the effect of which is to endanger human life; [or]
(viii) interference with or disruption of the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource, the effect of which is to endanger life.”
Because of the severe nature of a terrorism charge, the evidentiary burden placed on the prosecution is particularly high. To establish an act of terrorism, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not merely that violent or destructive acts were committed, but that the ultimate objective behind those acts was to forcefully compel the Prime Minister or the Government to act, or to fundamentally fracture the economic or constitutional stability of Mauritius.
In contrast to terrorism, public disorder involving collective violence or commotion falls under the law governing public order offences. Under Section 143 of the Criminal Code, a riot is defined as:
“…an unlawful assembly that has begun to execute the purpose for which it was assembled through a breach of the peace.”
While a riot involves violent action or breach of the peace by an assembled group executing an unlawful common intent, it lacks the specific statutory requirement of intending to destabilize national governance structures, compel the executive authority, or inflict large-scale catastrophic harm as mandated under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
* The Criminal Code already covers treason, unlawful assembly and the destruction of property. Why would the authorities opt for PoTA rather than standard criminal law? Is it primarily intended to deter potential rioters from going too far and causing further disturbances?
Offences like “unlawful assembly” or being a “rogue and vagabond” are relatively minor infractions for which an accused person would generally be entitled to bail. Under PoTA, however, strict bail restrictions apply. Working in tandem with specialised legal mechanisms, these provisions allow authorities to lawfully detain key organisers and active participants while a crisis is ongoing.
Moreover, under section 5(7) of the Constitution, a person arrested for terrorism can be kept in incommunicado detention—that is, without the possibility of having access to a lawyer or visitor for a specified period. The right to bail would also be rendered illusory. The section reads:
“Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of subsection (3) to the extent that the law in question authorises a police officer not below the rank of superintendent of police to direct that any person arrested upon reasonable suspicion of having committed any offence related to terrorism or any drug dealing offence be detained in police custody for a period not exceeding 36 hours from his arrest without having access to any person other than a police officer not below the rank of Inspector or a Government Medical Officer.”
* In practice, how does lodging a provisional charge under PoTA affect the scope of police powers during preliminary investigations? How can the authorities ensure that these powers are exercised appropriately when responding to social unrest?
Beyond incommunicado detention for up to 36 hours, a provisional charge allows the police to bring an arrested individual under immediate judicial supervision. In practice, however, a provisional charge enables the police to justify continued detention based on “reasonable suspicion” and grants them the authority to detain suspects rapidly during ongoing operations. Once a provisional charge is lodged, the police face no strict statutory deadline to finalise their main case file.
* It would seem that there have been multiple high-profile cases where provisional charges under PoTA were initially lodged by police, only to be entirely dropped later. What does this track record reveal about the risk of using provisional PoTA charges during sensitive investigations?
The threshold of proof in a PoTA case is exceptionally high. In determining whether to proceed with a prosecution under PoTA, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must evaluate whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and satisfy the statutory definition of terrorism, as well as whether such a prosecution serves the public interest.
* If a provisional charge under PoTA is eventually dismissed or reduced to a standard offence, what avenues for redress exist for individuals who spent months in custody under an improperly applied statute?
Any individual who considers that they were unlawfully arrested may institute civil proceedings against the State for damages or constitutional redress. However, the prospects of success are generally low where the arrest was grounded on reasonable suspicion.
* What safeguards are in place to ensure that PoTA is applied proportionately and that peaceful protesters or individuals who may have committed ordinary criminal offences are not inadvertently treated as suspected terrorists?
Under PoTA, the offence requires specific intent to terrorise the public, destabilise government or constitutional structures, or compel a government or international organisation. The evidence establishing this intent must be clear and specific in light of the statutory definition of terrorism. In the absence of such evidence, the DPP will not initiate a prosecution for terrorism.
* Given that 17 minors have reportedly been arrested in connection with the recent incidents, what additional legal protections apply to children investigated or charged under PoTA, and are their age and circumstances taken into account?
Under Section 49 of the Children’s Act 2020, children under the age of 14 lack criminal responsibility. They cannot be prosecuted for any criminal offence, including offences under PoTA. The law does not permit the police to keep children under 14 in detention. Instead, if suspected of a serious offence, they are referred to probation officers and psychologists for assessment and targeted support rather than facing the criminal justice system.
* What implications could the use of anti-terrorism legislation to address localised civil unrest have for Mauritius’s international reputation and its standing among investors and human rights organisations?
Invoking PoTA to address civil unrest or economic protests risks damaging Mauritius’s hard-earned reputation as a stable, democratic state committed to the rule of law. Furthermore, such measures are likely to draw severe criticism from international human rights organisations.
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 23 October 2026
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
