Ever since it was enacted in October 2019, the Workers’ Rights Act 2019 is a piece of legislation which has been subjected to frequent amendments, most notably through the annual Finance Acts. In the year 2025, it is the first time that no amendment was brought to the Workers’ Rights Act by the Finance Act 2025 but instead, a legislative reform focused on the National Pensions Act 1976, marking a significant shift in social welfare policy.

Mauritius’ Pension Age Reform: Social Welfare at a Crossroads

Mauritius faced a pivotal moment in its social welfare history in 2025. In August 2025, the Government enacted sweeping reforms to the National Pensions Act, raising the eligibility age for the Basic Retirement Pension (“BRP”) from 60 to 65, to be phased in over the next decade. Officials argued this was a necessary response to mounting fiscal pressures and an aging population. Nonetheless, this was met with strong public resistance, with critics charactering the measure as undemocratic and discriminatory.

The Government’s Rationale: Sustainability and Intergenerational Equity

The Government’s justification was clear: with national debt rising and an aging population, the BRP in its previous form had become “unsustainable.” Section 39 of the Finance Act 2025 introduced a phased increase in the pension age, aiming to give citizens and employers time to adjust. Alongside this, a targeted income support scheme was launched for those aged 60–65 who fell below certain income thresholds, intended to cushion the most vulnerable during the transition.

These pension reforms were part of a broader set of employment law changes in 2025. Although it was a year of rare stability for employment law, unlike previous years, which saw extensive amendments to the labour law, it still brought targeted changes. Most notably, paid leave to care for child, parent or grandparents were brought through the Economic and Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2025 to include spouses.

Additionally, the Private Recruitment Agencies Regulations 2025 was also promulgated. It modernised recruitment and amongst the new changes bought, it prohibits recruitment agencies from charging any fee or cost to the workers. Workers exposed to radiation also benefitted from the amendment of the Radiation Safety and Nuclear Security (Occupational Radiation Protection) Regulations 2025. They now have a more secure working environment.

The Legal Challenge: “A Sacrosanct Right” Under Threat

Despite the Government’s assurances, many Mauritians remained unconvinced. Economists on the other hand agreed that the BRP may not remain financially sustainable for the Mauritian economy in the long term, suggesting the introduction of a ‘Voluntary Pension Scheme’ as a more viable alternative. A few Mauritian citizens had jointly filed a constitutional challenge against the reform. In their plaint with summons before the Supreme Court of Mauritius, the plaintiffs averred that they had planned their retirements around the expectation of receiving the BRP at 60, a benefit they described as a “sacrosanct aspect of post-colonial Mauritian society.” The plaint detailed how the sudden change would deprive them of five years’ worth of pension payments, amounting to a considerable financial loss.

The plaintiffs had further contended that the reform violated several constitutional protections, including:

• Equality before the law: The new rules excluded and marginalised only those born after September 1969, creating what they called “arbitrary and discriminatory” distinctions.
• Protection against deprivation of property: By delaying access to the BRP, the reform stripped citizens of a benefit they had long relied upon.
• Lack of consultation: The plaintiffs highlighted the absence of public debate or stakeholder engagement before the reform was announced.

Historical Context: The BRP as a Social Contract

The plaintiffs traced the BRP’s roots to the colonial era, noting that since 1958, Mauritius had maintained a universal, non-means-tested pension for all citizens aged 60 and above, even during periods of economic crisis. They argued that this tradition had become a cornerstone of social solidarity and that the abrupt change undermined decades of policy continuity.

The Road Ahead

The Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the reform will have far-reaching implications, not just for the plaintiffs, but for the future of social welfare in Mauritius. The case raises fundamental questions about how governments should balance fiscal responsibility with the rights and expectations of their citizens.

As the nation awaits the Court’s verdict, the debate over pension reform has become a litmus test for the values of fairness, transparency, and social justice in Mauritian society.

For the time being, the government is being forced with the tedious task of choosing the ‘unpopular’ reforms, where such decision is balancing its fiscal responsibility towards the country against the social security for the elderly.

Reflecting Back: 2025

While 2025 was marked by relative stability in employment legislation, the absence of a finalised National Protocol for Heavy/Torrential Rain stands out as a major gap in worker protection. While pension reforms and limited labour updates aimed to adapt Mauritius’s social welfare system to demographic and fiscal pressures, the lack of a unified framework for extreme weather leaves the private sector employees reliant on temporary public sector measures. As the country awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling on the BRP reforms, the pending rain protocol serves as a reminder that safeguarding citizens requires both long‑term and timely planning, including policymaking that addresses immediate risks. With upcoming climatic changes, this pending protocol is becoming an essential element which remains outstanding.