“The prison authorities are bound by the provisions of the law; we cannot read the law with a pinch of salt”

Interview: Satyajit Boolell, SC, Chairperson, NHRC

* ‘We have been spared the ordeal of totalitarianism. Our history, overall, is a story of the growth of an enabling, not a repressive, state’

* ‘Allowing extraneous factors to influence a member of the Commission would constitute a violation of their oath of office’

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens in Mauritius. Since his appointment, Satyajit Boolell, SC, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, has brought a fresh wave of visibility to the Commission as its Chairperson. In this week’s interview, Mr Boolell, SC, offers a candid and comprehensive assessment of the current state of human rights in the nation. He delves into his vision for the NHRC, the necessary reforms for the correctional and judicial systems, and the Commission’s commitment to operational reality while upholding the rule of law. From addressing the nuances of the Melrose Prison disturbances to expanding the scope of rights awareness, his insights map out the way forward for one of Mauritius’s most vital democratic institutions.

Mauritius Times: You’ve been in office for only four months, but if you were to prepare a report on the state of human rights in Mauritius for 2025, what would the overall picture look like?

Satyajit Boolell: I would start by seeking answers to three questions to roadmap the report: first, our track record on human rights observance from a historical perspective; second, whether that observance has been instrumental in promoting our democratic ideals; and third, how we envisage the future in the face of challenges to civil and political values – essential to democratic life and to the economic, social, and cultural rights vital for our existence.

I shall provide brief answers. Human rights are our birthright as human beings. Equal treatment is essential to delivering them. They are not a gift of government but part of our common humanity, encompassing our rights to freedom, equality, and upholding our dignity.

Mauritius has a rich history and culture of human rights, dating back to the French period when the “Declaration des Droits et des Devoirs de l’Homme et du Citoyen” was adopted by the Assemblée Coloniale of the Isle de France (Mauritius) in 1794. The constitutional road leading to the 1968 Constitution resonates with our struggle for universal suffrage, the right to strike, and the right to expression to vindicate injustices and secure access to a fair and impartial justice system. These various stages leading to Chapter II of our Constitution ought to be highlighted.

Second, we should value the fact that since independence, we have been spared the ordeal of totalitarianism. Our history, overall, is a story of the growth of an enabling, not a repressive, state. The fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under Chapter II to all our citizens are enforceable by an independent Judiciary. Moreover, any legislation enacted by Parliament that infringes those rights will be struck out by the Supreme Court to the extent of its incompatibility.

The source of Chapter II is the European Convention of Human Rights, which itself originated from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted on 10 December 1948. The NHRC, which I preside over, is one of the institutions vested with statutory powers to act as guardian of the rights guaranteed under Chapter II.

Third, the way forward? Do we overhaul the system completely or consolidate our institutions with further rules of checks and balances? There is, in my opinion, a strong case for continuation and consolidation.

I believe these are the key areas a report on the state of human rights should address. Our track records are, in fact, both promising and reassuring. We need only look at the sweeping protests across Madagascar, where basic human rights are denied, to realize how fortunate we are. There are obvious challenges ahead in an era where the world is divided, resorting to protectionist measures, and the spectre of a new cold war is raising its head. The UN commission of inquiry has just confirmed the world’s worst-kept secret: that Israel is committing genocide.

The Mauritian government has committed itself to a Constitutional Commission to review our Constitution, especially Chapter II, to provide for economic, social, and cultural rights, environmental rights, and to consolidate the electoral process. It could not be better news.

* What would you say to those who question the need for a specialised and dedicated institution to oversee the full spectrum of human rights, given that existing laws already provide certain protections against abuses?

The existence of an institution like the NHRC emanates from the international obligations of the Government subsequent to adhering to Human Rights Treaties. The NHRC is an independent body established to promote and protect human rights. It acts as a bridge between the government and civil society, facilitating dialogue and cooperation to address human rights challenges.

Believing in human rights is to believe in human beings; it is to strive for everything we need to live with the possibility of flourishing in the world where we live. I should mention that the NHRC is the fastest route to a remedy for a violation of a person’s fundamental rights. Once there is a finding to that effect, the NHRC will refer the matter to the Attorney General to compensate the victim, if justified.

* The NHRC has been more visible in 2025 — with a new leadership team, round-tables, prison visits, and reports. What’s next?

There are many options available, from engagement with decision-makers to public awareness campaigns, but first, the NHRC must be accepted as a credible institution that makes serious proposals. It must be seen to be independent, impartial, fair, and just. It is under those circumstances that it can mobilise public support and create pressure on the government to act. It should also ensure collaboration with the government at all times and integrate its recommendations into existing policies and frameworks, ensuring that human rights considerations are prioritised.

* What safeguards does the NHRC employ to guarantee its analyses are objective and protected from external pressures — whether from civil society lobbies, traditional media, or social media pressures?

All members serving the NHRC take an oath of office to act with impartiality, integrity, and confidentiality. The independence of the institution is statutorily guaranteed, and members enjoy security of tenure.

Allowing extraneous factors to influence a member of the Commission would constitute a violation of their oath of office.

* How does your extensive experience in policing, examining police conduct, and overseeing prison conditions and rehabilitation — gained during your tenure as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) — inform you in your capacity as Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in addressing these issues?

The DPP creates the link between the police and the judiciary. It is his responsibility to assess the evidence in every case. He is at the service of justice, and he stands between the State, represented by the Commissioner of Police, and the citizen, forming the second pivotal link. His client is the administration of justice. These principles were benchmarks during my tenure of office as DPP.

Since my assumption of office as Chairperson of the NHRC, I have noticed that there exists a glaring disconnect between the courts that sentence offenders and the prisons that receive them. It explains why there is such a high rate of re-offenders.

It is high time that we move from the conventional approach, first by rethinking our sentencing policy and exploring alternative diversion programmes, especially when it comes to young offenders. We should stop sending all drug users, irrespective of the drugs used, to jail. These addicts need treatment and require serious attention to rehabilitate them in society. There is an urgent need to revisit the whole policy defining certificate of characters. I have also mentioned that reforms should start at the level of our District Courts. Magistrates should be assisted by lay persons familiar with community dynamics. Second, and this is one of the recommendations of the Melrose Report, judges and magistrates should receive feedback on the effectiveness of the punishment they have imposed.

I welcome the government’s commitment to making our courts more accessible, and the Attorney General is doing excellent work in that respect. We should remember that the founding fathers of our Constitution were adamant that the Supreme Court would act as the guardian of human rights guaranteed under Chapter II. In the future, it will be open to the NHRC to petition the Court on important issues that may have adverse consequences for the lives of citizens.

* As regards the Melrose Prison disturbances, the Commissioner of Prisons argues that the Fact-Finding Committee report is overly “legal” and lacks an “operational” perspective, suggesting that the alleged abuses of force should be viewed with a pinch of salt — given the need to contain explosive situations. As a former DPP, who is well aware of the operational pressures within detention facilities and police operations in volatile areas, would you agree the Commissioner of Prisons may have a point?

With due respect to the Commissioner, I do not see things from that perspective. Yes, our report employs a legal approach because that is our basic mission: to look at the facts and apply the law to them. One can’t criticize a judge for delivering a judgment that seems too legalistic simply because he didn’t write it from the perspective of, say, a policeman.

The use of force is governed by the Reform Institutions Act, the statute that dictates how the prison services must act. The prison authorities are bound by the provisions of the law; we cannot read the law with a pinch of salt.

What the Commission undertook was an assessment of the evidence, coming from prison officers, the Commissioner’s officers, the medical personnel, and some detainees. It reached the conclusion that there were wide lacunas in the existing protocols to deal with situations that officers faced at Melrose. We are hoping that, in light of the recommendations of the Commission, these lacunas will be addressed to enhance operational efficiency and transparency, and we (the NHRC) will fulfill our mission to monitor and check whether they are really efficient and compliant with the law.

* Don’t you think it would be in the public interest – and important for the protection of human rights – that de-escalation protocols and use-of-force frameworks are not merely legalistic but realistic, practical, and applicable within the operational realities of our prisons, particularly the high-security ones, and police interventions in the field?

The use of force is prohibited under all circumstances save where the Reform Institutions Act makes provisions for it. It is a recourse of the last resort and then under specific conditions. The Prison Standing Orders are also clear that the use of force is a last resort measure to be used where necessary, and that the use of force must at all times be necessary and proportionate to the threats encountered.

De-escalation protocols and use-of-force frameworks must be more than mere theoretical or tidy clauses on paper; they must be executable in the chaos of real-life situations and serve the public interest. A rulebook that fails under pressure protects absolutely no one: not prison officers, not persons deprived of liberty, and not the public at large.

Let us be clear, legality is the floor, not the ceiling. Standards of legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability must be translated into plain, actionable steps that a prison officer can use under pressure to protect himself, his fellow colleagues, and the detainees. Operational realism is itself a human-rights safeguard when staff have credible, tested measures to de-escalate, which consequently sharply reduce the risks of injury, retaliations, and violations.

Accordingly, the NHRC recommends that every use-of-force and de-escalation policy is stress-tested against real operational scenarios before adoption and is routinely audited against hard outcomes such as injuries, complaints, lengthy restraint duration, and medical referrals.

As stipulated in our recent report “Disturbances at Melrose High Security Prison”, we further recommend the convening of correction services, police, medical services, and Judicial officers to co-design standard operating procedures that meet international benchmarks like the Mandela Rules, the Code of Conduct for prison Officers, and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, whilst taking into consideration our national realities in order to be better prepared to uphold the fundamental rights of all individuals in times of crisis.

At the NHRC, one of our priority commitments remains ensuring the enforcement of rights-compliant use of force is operationally executable. Anything less endangers officers and detainees and undermines the rule of law.

* However, isn’t it true that we often overlook the fact that many prisoners, particularly habitual offenders, are far from being “choirboys,” and that despite the authorities’ genuine efforts, most rehabilitation and welfare measures have largely failed to reform them?

Let us not mix oil and water. Of course, many detainees are dangerous criminals, but it should not be a reason to marginalise them and treat them as hopeless cases. This is why the NHRC has been pressing for a rehabilitation programme that does not stop at the prison gates but extends beyond to ensure proper reinsertion into society.

* The NHRC is best known for its investigative role, which includes monitoring police conduct and prison conditions. However, its mandate also extends to promoting awareness of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. What methods or tools does the NHRC use — or plan to use — to measure how effectively it is raising awareness of these rights in Mauritius?

Not exactly. Our mandate is extended to Chapter II of the Constitution, which deals essentially with Civil and Political rights. But then again, isn’t the right to life precisely about our economic, social, and cultural rights? In promoting human rights, we make no such distinctions and go as far as third and fourth-generation rights are concerned.

It is important to note that at the NHRC, we have two Divisions: the NPMD (National Preventive Mechanism Division), regulated by the Act of 2012, which deals with the monitoring and investigation into the treatment of detainees; and the Human Rights Division, which operates under the Protection of Human Rights Act 1998, and is mandated to promote, protect, educate, and raise awareness of human rights.

To generate concrete results—as stipulated in our 2024 report—we track who we reach, what knowledge they gain, and the resulting changes.

Firstly, every sensitisation session is targeted by the audience, and attendance is recorded so we know exactly which communities we are serving and how often. In 2024, our Human Rights Division delivered talks from Tyack to Souillac in women’s forums, youth hubs, and disability groups, reaching over 2,000 people sensitized throughout the island. Specific examples include sensitizing 55 youth animators and students at the Souillac Youth Hub, 48 members of the public at Quartier Militaire, and 32 people with disabilities at Maingard Community Centre. Each entry is recorded with the date, venue, target group, and headcount.

Moreover, we measure learning and confidence, not just attendance. Our programmes specify outcomes upfront and we ensure those outcomes are delivered. When we trained 200 head boys and head girls at the Mahatma Gandhi Institute in June 2024, we did more than “raise awareness”: we built leadership capacity on child rights and mental-health stigma for those young leaders to advocate the same in their own schools. Likewise, our collaborations with the National Women’s Council and the Citizens Advice Bureau were designed to equip women, seniors, and public officers with practical tools to tackle inequality and increase practical understanding of their fundamental rights.

Furthermore, we treat complaint patterns as a real-world barometer of awareness and access. We compute monthly totals and analyse category and gender trends; in 2024, we recorded 163 complaints across the year, presented by month and gender. Tracking how many matters are properly routed to the NHRC versus civil disputes that belong elsewhere dictates whether the public understands what a human-rights issue is and how to pursue redress.

From 2025 onward, we’re closing the gap between what we do and what people experience. We are widening protection where most matters lie: housing, health, social security, and also climate and environment justice. We shall also draw a clear, simple line between true human-rights issues and a private civil dispute, so fewer people are bounced from office to office. We further intend to make reporting safer and easier through secure, transparent channels.

We will keep tracking who we reach, what they learn, whether cases land in the right place the first time, and how quickly remedies follow.

* What has probably come as a surprise is the decision of the NHRC to take up the case of the Air Mauritius retirees whose acquired travel privileges were allegedly suspended following a legal action they had initiated. One would have thought that the primary jurisdiction for such cases lies with the Ministry of Labour. Is the NHRC mandated to look into such matters?

I can’t discuss a matter which is before the Commission.

Air Mauritius is defined as a public body under the Protection of the Human Rights Act. The NHRC, being an independent entity, ensures that it will operate strictly within its mandate.

* It is understood that health, education, and housing are considered fundamental human rights because “they are essential to human dignity, well-being, and the full realisation of other human rights.” But where does individual responsibility fit into this equation?

Unless one wants to take a narrow view of the scope of human rights, the right to health, education, and housing are inherent in the right to life, to protection of the law, to freedom of conscience, expression, and association. These rights require from the individual serious considerations involving legal, moral, and ethical issues.

A parent may not want his child to attend a school not in conformity with his religious beliefs, or to live in an unpolluted environment, or to accept that children have free and unsupervised access to the internet at school.

Human rights, as Eleanor Roosevelt once put it, begin in small places close to home. It’s in the personal sphere that we first apply our values and experience our rights and freedoms. As human beings, we value our autonomy, but at the same time, we yearn for belonging and respect; we look for freedom and also for protection.

The individual is at the centre of these decisions and choices and will always face competing interests in battles for liberty, equality, and recognition.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 10 October 2025