Two Women Killed Since the Beginning of the Year - Me Mokshda Pertaub: "Without Real Protection, Feminicides Will Continue"
Another woman has been killed. Shivani Saminaden, aged 30, died following a violent dispute within her relationship, bringing the total number of feminicides recorded in Mauritius to two in the first week of the year. This tragic event raises questions once again about the state's and society's ability to protect threatened women. Lawyer, gender expert at the United Nations, and president of MPower, Mokshda Pertaub, analyzes this reality in light of the law and institutional obligations.
Two feminicides have been recorded in the first week of 2026. What does this reality reveal about the situation of women in Mauritius today?
It reveals an extremely disturbing truth: despite official rhetoric, awareness campaigns, and some legal advancements, women at risk are still not effectively protected. These early deaths in the year demonstrate that the issue is not isolated, but structural. Feminicides are not isolated accidents; they are symptoms of a system that fails to intervene in time, despite often very clear warning signs.
With each tragedy, the outrage is intense, then subsides. Why does this collective anger not translate into lasting action?
Because outrage alone is not a public policy. It is emotional, reactive, and fleeting. What is lacking is a consistent political will to transform this anger into structural reforms. As long as responses remain sporadic, without mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, and accountability, we will continue to witness the same tragic cycle: shock, anger, forgetfulness... until the next feminicide.
As a lawyer, would you say that the existing legal framework truly protects women?
The legal framework offers theoretical protection, but real protection is lacking. Laws only save lives when they are applied rigorously, in a coordinated and timely manner. However, too often, women do everything the system expects of them: they file complaints, report violence, seek help, but the institutional response is fragmented, slow, or insufficient. The law cannot merely exist; it must take action.
Why is the Supreme Court ruling of December 10, 2025, considered a turning point?
The ruling in the case of State v. Nubbeebuccus Mamode Umaiir (2025 SCJ 575), delivered by Judge Mehdi Manrakhan, marks a major turning point as it explicitly recognizes the term "feminicide," even though this offense is not yet codified in the Penal Code. Naming the crime is crucial: it acknowledges that certain forms of violence are not mere domestic disputes, but acts based on misogyny and coercive control.
The Court emphasized that the victim had made multiple complaints and attempted to protect herself, without success, revealing an institutional failure. It also clarified that the severity of the facts—prolonged violence, premeditation, gendered motive—fully justifies life imprisonment, sending a clear message about the proportionality of sanctions.
This ruling illustrates that naming feminicide, codifying the crime, and making its sanctions visible are essential to prevent future deaths and to remind society that women's lives and autonomy are non-negotiable.
The Court also recognized an institutional failure. What does this acknowledgment mean?
It means that the state has failed in its obligation to protect. The victim had taken numerous steps, alerted the police, and sought refuge. The Court acknowledged that the crime was the culmination of a continuum of ignored violence. This acknowledgment is crucial as it paves the way for serious reflection on the responsibility of institutions and the necessity for functional early warning mechanisms.
Why is it important to recognize feminicide as a distinct offense?
Because naming is recognizing. Codifying feminicide would allow for the clear identification of gender-motivated crimes, improve data collection, tailor prevention policies, and send a strong message: gender-based violence is neither tolerable nor trivializable. This is not a symbolic claim, but an essential tool for justice and prevention.
Misogynistic and victim-blaming reactions towards victims are common. Why are they so dangerous?
Because they shift the responsibility for the crime onto the victim and trivialize male violence. These narratives create a social climate where violence is excused, minimized, or even justified. They fuel impunity and deter women from seeking help. These are not mere opinions: they are discourses that actively contribute to violence.
You assert that this is not ignorance, but misogyny. How can the law act on these mindsets?
The law is a powerful lever for social transformation. By clearly naming misogyny, recognizing gender-based violence, and severely punishing these crimes, the law redefines social norms. It sends a clear message about what is acceptable and what is not. The law does not change mindsets overnight, but it sets boundaries on what is tolerable.
While awaiting the reform of the Domestic Abuse Bill, what can be done immediately?
Many things. It is possible to immediately strengthen risk assessments, especially in cases of repeated complaints, improve coordination among the police, social services, and shelters, and systematically train frontline officers in trauma-informed and gender-sensitive approaches. Inaction is not a neutral option: it costs lives.
What message do you have for policymakers and institutions today?
The message is simple and grave: every delay kills. Feminicides are not inevitable. They are the result of political, institutional, and social choices. Moving from outrage to action is no longer a moral option; it is a legal and human obligation. Justice cannot be merely punitive; it must be preventive. Women's lives depend on it.