Introduction to Domestic Abuse Act 2026
Mauritius has strengthened its legal framework for those affected by domestic abuse with the Domestic Abuse Act 2026. The bill was introduced in the National Assembly on 23 June 2026.
It was passed on 10 July 2026. It was subsequently passed on 10 July 2026, received Presidential assent on 20 July 2026, and was gazetted on 21 July 2026.
The legislation is therefore no longer a Bill but the Act. However, it has been enacted and gazetted, but its commencement date remains fixed. Until that date, the full effect is pending.
The Act repeals the Protection from Domestic Violence Act 1997 and creates a more comprehensive framework for addressing domestic abuse.
One notable innovation is section 10, which allows interim protection orders to be sought through technological means.
Section 10: Protection Orders through Technology
Section 10 introduces a mechanism intended to facilitate urgent access to the Court where an aggrieved person is believed to face an immediate risk of further domestic abuse.
Under section 10(1), where an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate risk of further acts of domestic abuse, the officer may make an application for a protection order on behalf of the aggrieved person by sending a scanned copy of the application to the Court through technological means.
Section 10(2) further provides that the Court may conduct a remote hearing to determine whether an interim protection order should be issued.
This represents a significant procedural development. Instead of waiting for the physical application to reach the Court, the application may be transmitted electronically, allowing the Court to consider the matter where urgent intervention is required.
Intervention before the related person is heard is required under the Domestic Abuse Act 2026.
Section 10(3) allows the Court, where satisfied that there is an immediate risk of further domestic abuse and that intervention is warranted before the related person is heard, to issue an order in accordance with section 9(1).
This recognises that, in certain circumstances, waiting for the related person to be heard before granting interim protection could defeat the very purpose of the protective jurisdiction.
However, the power must still be exercised judicially, balancing the need for immediate protection with the principles of procedural fairness.
The original application.
The technological procedure does not eliminate the requirement for formal documentation.
Under section 10(4), the enforcement officer must cause the original application to be lodged with the Court at the earliest available opportunity and no later than the next working day.
The provision therefore creates a practical two-stage process: urgent electronic transmission followed by formal lodging of the original application
But will section 10 really work?
The introduction of technological means undoubtedly has the potential to make the system more responsive. However, an important question remains.
Will section 10 really work in practice, particularly in light of the increasing number of cases before the District Courts?
Technology can make the transmission of an application faster. Nevertheless, it cannot, by itself, guarantee a faster judicial decision. If courts are already dealing with increasing workloads, electronic transmission can speed delivery.
However, it may not shorten the time to issue an order. The effectiveness of section 10 will therefore depend not only on technology, but also on the availability of judicial resources, administrative support, appropriate systems for receiving electronic applications, and the ability of the Court to deal with urgent applications promptly.
The real test will be whether the new procedure can translate technological speed into judicial protection.
Conclusion
Section 10 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2026 is an innovative provision which seeks to modernise the process of obtaining urgent interim protection orders.
Allowing applications to be transmitted electronically and hearings to be conducted remotely could significantly improve access to justice for persons facing an immediate risk of domestic abuse. Nevertheless, the success of the provision will ultimately depend on its implementation.
The crucial question is therefore not simply whether technology can make applications faster, but whether the Court system has the capacity to ensure that those applications are heard and determined quickly enough to provide meaningful protection.
Will section 10 truly make protection orders faster, or will technological efficiency be limited by the increasing workload of the District Courts? Only its implementation will provide the answer.