[Blog] Are we winning the fight against corruption in Mauritius?

As the world marks International Anti-Corruption Day, Mauritius sees its ranking slip. Amid reforms, inconsistencies, and regional competition, the fight against corruption remains fragile and full of challenges.
The world will be commemorating the International Anti-Corruption Day 2025 on 9 December. To recall, International Anti-Corruption Day was designated by the United Nations to highlight the dangers of corruption, mobilize collective actions and encourage global cooperation in fighting it. The observance was established following the adoption of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) on 31 October 2003.

The chosen theme for 2025 focuses on youth as “guardians of integrity”. Today, it is universally recognized that corruption has wide-ranging detrimental effects: it undermines democracy, deepens poverty and inequality, weakens institutions, and harms economic and social development. According to the United Nations, “Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life, and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.” (Foreword to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, 2004). This quote captures why the UN dedicates 9 December as International Anti-Corruption Day – to remind the world that corruption is not just about money lost, but about justice, equality, and peace being compromised.

Given that corruption is a secretive crime, it cannot be measured directly. Thus, global institutions use perception‑based, experience‑based, and institutional indicators to measure it. The most popular proxy for corruption measurement remains the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) of Transparency International (TI). The CPI ranks 180 countries and territories worldwide by their perceived levels of public sector corruption. The results are given on a scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean).

Mauritius has consistently scored in the mid‑range of Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, reflecting moderate levels of perceived public sector corruption. In 2024, Mauritius scored 51/100 and ranked 56th out of 180 countries. In terms of global ranking, Mauritius, which ranked 33rd in the CPI in 1998, has since been declining and is presently occupying the 56th position. 

At the regional level, last year Mauritius occupied the 5th position in the Corruption Perceptions Index with a score of 51, behind Seychelles, Cabo Verde, Botswana and Rwanda. It must be pointed out that for years Mauritius used to occupy the 2nd position in Africa behind Botswana, but is unfortunately now following a downward trend.

Gradual decline

Seychelles, which is presently topping the African continent, made a giant stride. In 2012, Seychelles scored 52 out of 100, ranked 51st globally and 5th in Africa (behind Mauritius, which ranked 43rd  globally with a score of 57, and occupied the 3rd  position in Africa). On the other hand, in 2024, Seychelles ranked first in Africa with a score of 72 and occupied the 18th position globally (over 180 countries). This is a good example of steady progress which can be achieved with strong political will and even in the absence of an anti-corruption body. In fact, the Anti-Corruption Commission of Seychelles was set up in 2016 with the technical support of the Mauritian authorities. 

What explains Mauritius’ gradual decline? While our neighbours (Seychelles, Cabo Verde, Botswana, Rwanda) have been demonstrating strong political will and steady progress in the fight against corruption, Mauritius has been complacent, not to say backpedaling – making the fight against corruption a political issue, changing the name and powers of the anti-corruption body, appointing its nominees as heads, enacting new laws to suit their convenience and so forth. Do these changes bring tangible results for the country? 

Now, the new government has announced its intention to bring a change in the name and structure of the anti-corruption body. Will it make a marked difference in the fight against corruption in Mauritius and bring visible improvements for the Mauritian population? The public at large will surely recall the enactment of a recent legislation in Mauritius – the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 (FCC Act); proclaimed on 29 March 2024.

The FCC Act provides for the establishment of the Financial Crimes Commission as the apex agency in Mauritius to detect, investigate and prosecute financial crimes and any other ancillary offence connected thereto. The Commission has thus taken over the functions and powers of the Independent Commission Against Corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Asset Recovery Investigation Division of the Financial Intelligence Unit under the Asset Recovery Act and the Integrity Reporting Services Agency under the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Act. In addition, the Commission is henceforth the repository of all declarations made under the Declaration of Assets Act.

Do we really mean business?

Obviously, it cannot be claimed that this is a perfect legislation, but the Act establishes a single, consolidated authority to investigate and combat financial crimes, including money laundering, corruption, fraud, and drug‑related financial offences. The Act also addresses long‑standing fragmentation in enforcement by creating a unified institution. The new legislation was prepared with the help of international institutions such as the United Nations and various partners such as the National Crimes Agency UK. The irony is that we are now seeking the collaboration of the same National Crimes Agency UK to come up with another legal/institutional framework.

For Mauritius to move forward in the fight against corruption (if we really mean business and want to save valuable time) it would have been opportune to bring about necessary amendments to the existing legislation. One such amendment could be revisiting the dual role of the Director General as Head and Chair of the Commission in line with good governance practices. It is inconceivable that the Administrative Head of the organization also chairs the Board/Commission of such a mammoth corporation. Does it tally with the principles of good governance?

While in Mauritius, we are grappling with announcements, new legislative frameworks, new structures, future nominations and implementation modalities, our competitors’ are making genuine and concerted efforts to break the back of corruption and financial crimes and achieve genuine economic and social development in their respective countries. Will the fight against corruption and financial crimes in Mauritius remain a mere slogan? One day our children will surely judge us on our actions, or inactions, to better their lives!

By Lalldeo Boodhoo
Former Assistant Director
Financial Crimes Commission, Mauritius