‘What we do here matters. While the rest of world are turning to English, we ought not to undermine its use in our own country’

Interview: Me Vimalen Reddi

* ‘ Any move to institutionalise one language always risks being perceived as the institutional sidelining of others. A similar issue arises with the best loser system’

* ‘To treat French and Kreol on a par with English opens the door to a further erosion of the functional language of the Assembly to the overall detriment our constitutional coherence’

The recent push for the inclusion of Kreol in the Mauritian Parliament has sparked renewed debate over language policy, governance, and constitutional integrity. Junior Minister Joanna Berenger has been at the forefront of this advocacy, arguing for the democratisation of parliamentary discourse through Kreol. However, this proposal raises fundamental legal and structural questions that go beyond politics and touch upon the core of Mauritius’ constitutional framework.

In a recent article, barrister Vimalen Reddi has scrutinized the constitutional implications of this shift. He highlights that while Mauritius does not have an official language per se, English is entrenched as the working language of both the National Assembly and the judiciary. This is not merely a matter of linguistic preference; rather, it reflects the deep-rooted legal traditions, principles, and rules that govern law-making and interpretation in the country. Vimalen Reddi argues that the introduction of Kreol at the same level as English could disrupt the coherence of this framework, particularly given the critical role language plays in legislative precision and judicial interpretation. Read on:

Beyond legal considerations, the debate also touches on socio-political dimensions. While Kreol is often portrayed as a unifying language, Reddi cautions against assuming a monolithic linguistic identity for Mauritius. He notes that human rights claims regarding language rights must be examined through empirical and academic scrutiny rather than political assumptions. The risk of institutionalizing one language is that it may inadvertently marginalize others, leading to broader identity and inclusivity concerns. Read on:

Mauritius Times: You’ve raised concerns, in a recent article, regarding Junior Minister Joanna Berenger’s advocacy for Kreol’s use in Parliament, a move that has reignited a long-standing debate. While the ‘Alliance du Changement’-led government holds the majority needed for its implementation, the fundamental question is: should this be a purely political decision, or should it be governed by the Constitution, potentially requiring amendments?

Vimalen Reddi: The point of my article was to examine closely the constitutional arguments advanced by the Junior Minister. The essential point that I make is about the role of language, here English, in our constitutional framework. English plays a key structural role within that framework, which is an essential consideration that I thought was being overlooked and perhaps misunderstood in the debate.

You see, there is no official language in Mauritius per se, yet English is specifically designated as the official language for the National Assembly and the Courts. The question is why? The short answer is because the creation, interpretation and application of the law of the land is premised not only on the English language simpliciter, but legal English or legalese that has established traditions, principles, and rules developed over a millennium. Ambiguities in legislation are resolved through these traditions, principles and rules. Likewise, the doctrine of precedent, which is central to common law systems, depends on that precise linguistic formulation.

These principles are not just for the Courts. They are relevant for Parliament, the very body that makes the laws that the Courts are to interpret and apply. This is also why section 33(d) of the Constitution specifically requires that members of the Assembly must be able to speak and read English at a level that allows them to take an active part in its proceedings.

Therefore, I argue that linguistic uniformity is not here opposed to democracy. On the contrary, it is what makes our democratic structure intelligible and operable. Care must then be exercised about subtle and certainly the less subtle changes in language.

Of course, there are other dimensions to this debate, but the constitutional or legal dimensions cannot be overlooked, and my contribution was in that respect.

* You highlighted in your article the parallels between Section 49 of the Constitution and the Courts Act. How does this comparison inform your argument against the introduction of Kreol, and what are the key differences in how the existing French exception is handled in the courts versus the Assembly?

The problem lies with how the French exception is being treated.

Presently, it is up to the Assembly member to choose. It then becomes a matter of the member’s preference. French is thus at least for speech treated on a par with English. The exception has been incorrectly elevated and normalized. It no longer functions then as the exception intended by sections 33(d) and 49 of the Constitution.

In contrast, similar provisions in the Courts Act are for their part correctly applied. Thus, in practice before the Courts, the exception remains exceptional and is resorted to only with prior court permission.

The added problem is the evolution of parliamentary speeches away from detailed legislative discourse towards emotive rhetorical strategies to appeal to voters. This is a common trend around the world largely due to 24/7 news cycles and social media. In Mauritius, this is seen with the increasing use of French by members, no doubt as a strategy to be more impactful to voters in the age of televised debates. But this is to confuse the legislative arena and legislative function with a purely political one for political gains. Many of us have decried this in recent years the prioritization of form over substance. The research on this in England concludes that such trends are in effect diminishing the quality of democratic representation, which is actually served by serious and rigorous deliberation on the laws governing the land instead of shallow political posturing and vote-seeking.

It is thus crucial to reverse this trend to ensure that parliamentary debates remain substantive and relevant to legislation to ensure the quality of legislation and reinforce the legislative function of Parliament. I am concerned that the introduction of Kreol, if it is to be treated on a par with English at least for speech, just like French wrongly is, would go the other way.

* You also argued that any amendment to Standing Order 5 of the National Assembly to include Kreol without revising Section 49 of the Constitution would be unconstitutional. Could you explain the potential legal challenges that might arise from such an amendment?

It is plain that section 49 does not allow for the use of Kreol as it does for French. French is the only exception. There is no principle of interpretation that could warrant interpreting section 49 as allowing further language exceptions spoken in our land. The Speaker’s ruling on Standing Order is thus consistent with section 49. The Speaker indeed had no choice. Standing Order 5 must necessarily be read in conformity with section 49.

Now if the Standing Order is amended to expressly admit Kreol, it would seem to me fairly clear that such an amendment would be ultra vires (going beyond) section 49, and thus unconstitutional.

But even in the context of an amendment to the Constitution, the scope of any exception would have to be carefully defined bearing in mind the primacy of English, legislative function and Constitutional coherence.

 * You mentioned Section 47(3) of the Constitution regarding the alteration of fundamental provisions. In your opinion, does the introduction of Kreol constitute such a fundamental change, and what are the implications of this for the required democratic mandate?

The Junior Minister herself formulated her argument as primarily a section 1 issue, touching the root of our democratic state.

This said, the Constitution lays down a coherent framework for our democratic state. At the heart of that framework, English is given primacy, both at the levels of the judiciary and legislature, and this, for the reasons I have alluded to. The admission of Kreol does not point to a section 1 issue per se. All will depend on the scope of its use and the likely consequences thereof on the overall Constitutional framework.

* You also expressed concerns regarding the assumption that Kreol is a unifying language. Do you consider the notion of Kreol as a universal symbol of Mauritian identity to be inaccurate?

I am not qualified to say so. My point is that in dealing with claims to language rights courts necessarily consider what socio-linguistic experts say about the place of the particular language in a community. Thus, any claims made as regard Kreol would not be left to assumptions but would be closely scrutinized and tested against academic and empirical research.

In this regard, it was interesting for me, here as a lay person, to read some academic literature on Kreol as they appear to me to paint a rather more complex and contested picture. For instance, I came across the suggestion that whilst Kreol has been embraced in postcolonial discourse as a marker of national identity and cultural unity, its role as a colonial lingua franca and the ensuing consequence on other languages complicates that symbolic status. I thus cautioned against the broad assertions and assumptions which underly the claims for its inclusion in the Assembly.

 * The Junior Minister argues that excluding Kreol undermines freedom of expression and the democratic character of Mauritius. Is this argument sufficient to justify altering established parliamentary practices?

 To be clear, her argument cannot be that as members, they are restricted in their expression. As I mentioned earlier, section 33(d) of the Constitution requires a certain proficiency in English, both in speaking and reading. The Junior Minister’s argument, as I understand it, is that an important number of people are unable to follow the parliamentary debates in English – creating a sort of democratic deficit.

I find this to be a difficult argument to sustain.

First, even if Kreol is admitted, the fact that, as I suspect, the large majority would continue to debate laws in English, mean that any democratic deficit, if there is one, would not actually be resolved. This would very quickly be picked on by the Courts.

Second, there are several practical and targeted measures that can be adopted at the level of the Assembly and beyond to increase its accessibility. It should not be difficult to provide dedicated television channels that provide live translations. There is a lot that can be done. As an example, we all recall how radio stations followed live a couple of Privy Council cases and were effective in ensuring that their audience were able to follow the highly technical argumentation.

Third, political speech and participation have not actually been silenced. Simply, MPs’ roles as legislators require of them a certain type of technical speech that is not otherwise required of them in other aspects of their political engagement. That such technical speech may be out of reach of many does not render the rule requiring so unconstitutional. On the contrary, as I explained earlier, there is a valid argument that democratic representation in the Legislature is actually best served by the serious and rigorous deliberation in a language that is apt for that purpose.

Similarly, arguments in our courts and judgments, which are equally central to our democratic framework and crucial for the citizens, are in a technical language that is probably more out of the reach of the citizens. This is not about being elitist. Simply, the creation, interpretation and application of laws is a complex exercise that requires a certain level of technicity.

Ultimately, the Constitution seeks balance: accessibility versus institutional coherence within its framework. There is also the important point to factor in the balance: what we do here matters beyond our shores. While the rest of world are turning to English, especially for economic and commercial reasons, we ought not to undermine its use in our own country. You would be surprised to know that even Germany has amended its laws to allow the use of English in its courts to deal with the increasing number of cross-border commercial matters that are litigated. We should be careful not to give the use of English a bad press.

 * It’s to be expected that if Kreol is officially established as a language used in official settings (like Parliament), other groups who speak different languages in Mauritius would also want their languages to be given equal status. Would it become very difficult to manage the variety of languages while also ensuring that the process of making laws remains stable and understandable?

 Any move to institutionalise one language always risks being perceived as the institutional sidelining of others. A similar issue arises with the best loser system. The institutionalization of one community, or here, a few, has led to calls by others for the inclusion of their own.

This is a familiar issue in human rights law. Claims to language rights is not a numbers’ game, or dependent on whether everyone in the land understand or has adopted the language. Such claims are more about recognising, giving value and protecting identities and their specificities.

The move to admit Kreol no doubt goes in that direction and carries significant symbolism for our fledgling democracy, but it will also raise difficult questions about our identity and diversity. The institutionalization of language, similar to the best loser system, is ultimately an attempt to balance institutional coherence with diversity, individual rights, and minority concessions.

 * The Speaker has proposed the formation of a Select Committee to examine the question of allowing Kreol’s use in Parliament. Would this be the most suitable approach?

 There is nothing wrong in setting up a Select Committee, but it would not be within its competence to consider and decide on the complex constitutional questions that I have alluded to.

The Alliance du Changement stated in its manifesto: “L’Assemblée nationale devra aussi faire plus de place à l’usage du créole.” That does not seem to me to entail having Kreol on a par with English in speech in the Assembly. However, I could understand if consideration is given to the extent of the Chair’s discretion to permit very limited, passing or incidental use of Kreol without undermining the functioning of the Assembly as the Legislature.

In fact, it seems to me that the Speaker did exactly that by allowing the Junior Minister some latitude in her use of Kreol but not allowing a full-fledged speech. The manifesto could also be meaningfully fulfilled through practical measures aimed at improving public access to the work of Parliament, such as translation of Hansard summaries, legislative explainers, and civic education materials into Kreol, as well as the use of Kreol in public broadcasts or parliamentary outreach programmes. These are matters that a Select Committee could properly consider. A Select Committee may well consider whether these practical measures could be extended to other spoken languages in the country.

* What are the potential effects on the judicial system if the legislative branch begins to incorporate Kreol into the lawmaking process?

As I have already mentioned, to treat French and Kreol on a par with English opens the door to a further erosion of the functional language of the Assembly to the overall detriment our constitutional coherence.

In practical terms, the quality of Hansard — especially the linguistic, technical, and structural integrity of its contents — matters significantly when it is used by the judiciary. It’s not just a transcript; it’s an instrument of legal interpretation.

It is not to say that French or Kreol are inferior to English in any way. That is not the point. The point is that our Constitutional model intrinsically carries, through the use of English and its legalese, settled traditions, principles and rules. And speech here is intended primarily for a legislative function.

* Ultimately, is there a risk that political expediency can mean that judicious reasoning and constitutional provisions are overlooked. What, in your opinion, would be the long-term implications – social and political – of such an approach?

It is right that these issues should be examined in the context of 21st century Mauritius. The place of Kreol within our Constitutional framework is no doubt a legitimate question. However, I cannot quite understand the present urgency, especially that this is not a straightforward issue.

We need an open debate, with careful examination of all considerations, based on a full understanding and appreciation of our constitutional model. Our Constitution is often wrongly dismissed as a mere English colonial legacy. Unfortunately, many people are unaware of its history. Our Constitution is very much our own.

The promise of the change that we voted for was for our Constitution to be respected, and that any change to be brought to it be first examined carefully and with the seriousness that it deserves.

---

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 4 April 2025

Tags:Best Loser System Parallel, Constitutional Amendments, Constitutional Framework, Democratic Representation, Empirical Research On Kreol, English Language Primacy, French Language Exception, Global English Trends, Hansard Integrity, Human Rights And Language Rights, Identity And Inclusivity, Institutional Coherence, Interview Me Vimalen Reddi, Judicial Interpretation, Kreol Inclusion Debate, Legal English, Legalese, Legislative Function, Mauritius Times, National Assembly, Political Expediency Risk, Public Access, Section 33(D) Constitution, Section 49 Constitution, Select Committee Proposal, Standing Order 5, Symbolism Vs Substance, Translations