[Blog] From Punishment to Protection — Why Mauritius Needs a Digital Services Act

By Dharamraj Deenoo
Researcher and Consultant
Moving on from the Domestic Abuse Bill to Digital Services Bill.

A digital world with digital criminals, digital victims require Digital safety and Protection.

In Mauritius today, the digital battlefield is tilted against victims. Our laws are strong when it comes to punishing offenders — the Cybersecurity and Cybercrime Act 2021 hunts down identity thieves, revenge porn distributors, and online harassers. But when it comes to protecting victims in real time, the system falters.

Victims who suffer digital abuse often discover that the state’s machinery is designed to prosecute criminals, not to shield them. The MAUCORS portal, operated by CERT MU, functions as a technical router: it logs incidents and forwards them to the Data Protection Office, ICTA, or the Police Cybercrime Unit. Yet it does not act as a victim’s advocate, nor does it have the authority to compel global platforms to delete harmful content instantly.

Some remedies exist — the Protection from Domestic Violence Act allows victims of cyberstalking by a spouse or family member to seek immediate protection orders; the Data Protection Act 2017 grants a right to erasure when private data is exposed; and criminal injunctions can restrain abusers during investigations. But these are fragmented, slow, and reactive. By the time relief arrives, reputational and psychological harm is already inflicted.

Meanwhile, Big Tech has created a tool that Mauritius has yet to embrace: the Trusted Flagger framework. In Europe, under the Digital Services Act (DSA), platforms like Meta and TikTok are legally obliged to fast track takedown requests submitted by vetted national flaggers. This means that when harmful content is reported, it bypasses the endless queues of consumer complaints and is removed within hours. Mauritius, however, has no such mechanism.

The solution is clear: Mauritius must enact its own Digital Services Act. This law would designate a Digital Services Coordinator (DSC) — an independent authority within or alongside ICTA — empowered to appoint domestic Trusted Flaggers. CERT MU could evolve into a technical flagger for structural threats; NGOs like SOS Femmes could be empowered to fast track cases of harassment and non consensual imagery; and child protection authorities could instantly suppress content involving minors.

Skeptics may ask: can a small island state compel global giants? The answer lies in precedent. In 2025, Mauritius forced foreign digital service providers to register for VAT. Starting January 2026, even streaming platforms and tech firms must comply. If Mauritius can enforce tax obligations, it can enforce safety obligations.

Of course, safeguards are essential. A Mauritian DSA must narrowly define “illegal content” to prevent abuse of power, require transparent annual reporting, and guarantee judicial appeal for wrongful removals.

This is not just a legal reform — it is a moral imperative. Digital dignity is national dignity. Victims should not be left exposed while bureaucratic wheels turn. By enacting a Digital Services Act, Mauritius can shift from a posture of punishment to one of protection, ensuring that every citizen has the right not only to justice after harm, but to safety before harm spreads. (another battle for FAM).