[Punished for Their Hijab] The EOC Acknowledges the Injustice Suffered by Two ENS Africa Employees

• Lawyer Nadeem Hyderkhan: "The Workers’ Rights Act needs to be amended."

The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) publicly released a damning report on Friday against the law firm ENS Africa (Mauritius) and three of its leaders. Two Muslim employees, dismissed after they began wearing the hijab at work, were victims of discrimination based on their religious beliefs, the commission concluded.

The events date back to early 2025. Nadrah Bintee Diouman-Ameer, who had been employed at the firm for eight years, and Mushiirah Hanna Humeirah Aubdoollah, hired seven years earlier, both started wearing the hijab around February 2025 — the former upon her return from a pilgrimage to Mecca, the latter by personal choice. By April, the atmosphere in the office deteriorated. The two women reported being called to meetings where firm officials — Thierry Koenig, Shrivan Dabee, and Nashenta Vuddamalay Zindel — ordered them to remove their hijabs, citing the supposedly "secular" nature of the company, a concept that the complainants claim they did not understand in this context. They described a humiliating environment, marked by degrading comments about their faith.

On June 13, 2025, both women were suspended. Five weeks later, on July 18, they received their termination letters. No disciplinary procedure was held to allow them to respond to the allegations against them.

A Rule Cited, Yet Unproven

In front of the EOC, ENS Africa's management defended the existence of an old dress code, inherited from a 2009 resolution from CK Ltd — the entity that co-founded the Mauritian firm in 2013 — banning any "ostentatious external sign or symbol." The Commission examined this document closely. Its verdict is clear: this resolution bears no formal link to ENS Africa (Mauritius). Moreover, the employment manual actually given to employees of the firm does not include this prohibition. It simply mentions the requirement to wear the uniform and to avoid sloppy attire.

Another significant fact: the two complainants never signed an employment contract. They claim to have never been made aware of any dress code with religious implications, and it was only after their suspension that they discovered the existence of a "Sexual and Racial Harassment Policy" in effect at other African subsidiaries of the network — a document they presented to the labor court to demonstrate that the employer was violating its own principles.

The Commission also notes that the defendants did not, at any point, provide a credible alternative account of the facts, nor produce documentary evidence showing that the secular policy had been consistently applied in the firm's history.

No Binding Condition

Citing Section 6 of the Equal Opportunities Act 2008, which defines indirect discrimination, the EOC argues that the condition imposed on the complainants — to give up their hijabs — was neither justified nor legally enforceable. The Commission concludes that no rule prohibiting the hijab was ever validly imposed on the two employees. Due to the lack of a signed contract and compelling internal documentation, the dress code cited by ENS Africa had no legal standing against them. It also specifies that even if such a policy had formally existed, it would have had to meet the constitutional test set out in Articles 11 and 16 of the Mauritian Constitution, as well as the thresholds established by the EOA regarding discrimination based on beliefs. However, nothing of the sort has been demonstrated.

As for the accusations of spreading false information and threats to security, put forth by the employer to justify the lack of a disciplinary procedure, these are expressly contested by the complainants and did not convince the Commission.

Conciliation or Court?

Alongside the proceedings before the EOC, the Employment Relations Tribunal (ERT) had already ruled in October 2025, concluding that the employment relationship was irreparably broken and ordering ENS Africa to pay severance compensation to the two women. This decision is currently under judicial review by the employer.

The EOC report, signed on May 8, 2026, by its president C. Desvaux de Marigny and its two members G. Shibchurn and G. Seechurn, now invites the parties to attempt a final conciliation within 45 days. If no agreement is reached, the case will be referred to the Equal Opportunities Tribunal for a binding decision.

Lawyer Nadeem Hyderkhan: "The Law Needs to be Amended"

For Lawyer Nadeem Hyderkhan, one of the attorneys representing the two complainants, this report reinforces a long-held belief: Mauritian law must evolve. The lawyer reiterates his call to amend the Workers Rights Act to explicitly address workplace dress code issues, a legal gap that this case has starkly highlighted. Based on the EOC's findings, Lawyer Hyderkhan indicates that the case should be presented again before the court.