Access to Justice in Mauritius: What Happens When You Cannot Afford a Lawyer?

By Louis Eric Denis Ducasse

Justice is often described as a fundamental right. The Constitution of Mauritius guarantees the protection of the law and the right to a fair hearing. In principle, every citizen should be able to access the courts, regardless of income, social status, or personal circumstances.

Yet a question continues to trouble me:
What happens when a citizen cannot afford a lawyer, does not qualify for legal aid, and wishes to represent himself before the Supreme Court?

Over the past year, I have attempted to answer that question through my own experience.

The Missing Middle
In Mauritius, access to justice generally relies on three avenues:
•    Private legal representation;
•    State-funded legal aid;
•    Self-representation.

For many citizens, however, a significant gap appears to exist between these options.

Those with sufficient financial means can retain legal counsel. Those who satisfy the eligibility criteria may obtain legal aid. But there is also a category of citizens who fall between the two: individuals whose income is too high to qualify for legal aid but too low to afford private legal representation.

For them, self-representation may appear to be the only realistic option.
The question is whether that option is genuinely available in practice.

My Attempt to File a Divorce Petition

In July 2025, I attempted to file a divorce petition personally before the Family Division of the Supreme Court.

Before doing so, I consulted the relevant legislation, including the Divorce and Judicial Separation Act, the Code Civil Mauricien and the Supreme Court Rules 2000.

I was unable to identify any provision that expressly prohibited a litigant from filing such a petition personally.

However, my attempt was unsuccessful.

I was informed that the petition had to be filed through an attorney.

Seeking clarification, I submitted several letters to the Registry and later to the Master and Registrar. Responses were received on certain occasions, while other correspondence remained unanswered at the time of writing.

The responses I received referred principally to statutory provisions governing divorce proceedings and the requirement that petitions be entered before the Court in a particular manner.

What remained unclear to me was whether there existed a specific legal provision that expressly prevented a litigant from filing a divorce petition personally.

A Similar Experience with Legal Aid

At the same time, I sought legal aid.

Between August and December 2025, I made several attempts to submit applications and supporting documents.

During this process, I encountered what appeared to be changing procedural requirements.

On different occasions, I was informed that:

•    The online application system was not being used;
•    Additional documents were required;
•    Different eligibility criteria applied;
•    Certain forms were no longer acceptable.

As a citizen attempting to follow the correct procedure, I found the process difficult to navigate.

I do not suggest that these difficulties were the result of bad faith. Public institutions often operate under significant pressure and resource constraints.

Nevertheless, the experience raised broader questions regarding procedural clarity and accessibility.

The Constitutional Question

At the heart of this issue lies an important constitutional principle.
Section 3 of the Constitution guarantees the protection of the law.
Section 10 guarantees the right to a fair hearing.

Section 17 provides a mechanism through which citizens may seek constitutional redress before the Supreme Court.

In my view, these provisions raise an important legal question:

Can access to the Court depend entirely upon a citizen's ability to pay for professional representation?

This is not merely a personal concern.
It is a broader policy question that affects access to justice for many Mauritians.

The Role of Rule 3(3)

One of the legal provisions frequently discussed in this debate is Rule 3(3) of the Supreme Court Rules 2000.

Some interpretations suggest that legal representation is required for certain categories of proceedings.

Others argue that the rule was intended for specific procedural situations and should not be extended to every petition or motion filed before the Supreme Court.

This is ultimately a matter that may require judicial clarification.

My concern is not that the courts should abandon procedural safeguards.
Rather, it is whether procedural requirements should unintentionally create barriers for individuals who have no realistic access to legal representation.

What the Courts Have Said

Mauritian jurisprudence contains decisions that touch upon the issue of self-representation.

Particularly noteworthy is the decision in Aldridge SA v The State of Mauritius, where the Court emphasised the importance of allowing litigants an opportunity to address legal issues affecting their rights.

Reasonable minds may differ on how far that principle extends.

However, the case illustrates that access to justice involves more than physical access to a courtroom. It also concerns the practical ability of citizens to be heard.

A Question of Policy Rather Than Blame

This article is not intended as a criticism of individual judges, court officers, Registry staff, or legal professionals.

The individuals I encountered were performing their duties within the framework they understood to be applicable.

The issue is institutional rather than personal.

If procedures are unclear, inconsistent, or difficult for ordinary citizens to understand, the solution lies in reviewing those procedures.

The objective should be to strengthen confidence in the justice system, not to undermine it.

Possible Reforms

Several reforms could be considered.

First, greater clarity could be provided regarding the circumstances in which litigants may appear without legal representation before the Supreme Court.
Secondly, clearer procedural guidance could be made available to members of the public seeking to file documents personally.

Thirdly, legal aid procedures could be simplified and modernised to reduce uncertainty for applicants.

Finally, Mauritius may benefit from a more structured pro bono framework that would assist citizens who fall outside existing legal aid criteria.

Why This Matters

The effectiveness of a justice system is not measured solely by the quality of its laws.

It is also measured by whether ordinary citizens can realistically use those laws.

For many people, access to justice is not an abstract constitutional principle. It is a practical question that arises during divorce, employment disputes, family conflicts, property matters, and countless other situations.

A legal right that exists only on paper is of limited value.

A legal right that can be exercised in practice is what gives meaning to the rule of law.

My experience has led me to believe that there is room for a national conversation on how access to justice can be improved for self-represented litigants in Mauritius.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with my conclusions, I hope this discussion encourages reflection on an issue that affects the very foundation of our justice system.

About the Author

Louis Eric Denis Ducasse is a student in the Faculty of Law at the Open University of Mauritius. His academic interests include constitutional law, human rights, access to justice, and judicial administration.

This article is adapted from a research project examining the challenges faced by self-represented litigants before the Supreme Court of Mauritius. Drawing on legal analysis, case law, legislation, and the author's personal experience navigating judicial and administrative procedures, the study explores whether existing practices adequately facilitate access to justice for individuals who are unable to secure legal representation.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are intended to contribute to public discussion on access to justice and legal reform in Mauritius.