A critical examination of the 2016 Code of Corporate Governance of Mauritius and its enshrinement in the Companies Act 2001.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to provide for critical literature on the legal aspects of corporate governance and their application in Mauritius. The drawbacks of having the principles in the form of a non-binding code are discussed, and a case is made to consider their enshrinement in laws such as the Companies Act 2001 to render them legally enforceable for the good health of companies in Mauritius. Design/methodology/approach: A doctrinal legal methodology has been adopted to assess the effectiveness of the principles of the 2016 Code of Corporate Governance of Mauritius. Legislations, legal texts, case law and regulations are used to conduct this assessment. In addition, a black-letter approach is taken while discussing the enshrinement of the principles in the Companies Act 2001 of Mauritius. The doctrinal methodology is further supported by a qualitative analysis of the principles of corporate governance based on existing legal literature, which emphasises their relevance and importance. Findings: The principles of the 2016 Code of Corporate Governance are no doubt a progress over the former 2004 Code in various aspects, aligning the Code with the requirements of the OECD. However, there are still certain loopholes that have been highlighted. In addition, the extent to which these principles are reflected in the Companies Act, which is the primary legislation for companies, has been found to be lacking and inadequate. Originality/value: This paper is, to the best of the author's knowledge, the first legal literature concerning the Mauritian legal framework on corporate governance. This is relevant because the country has recently experienced corporate collapses, which could arguably have been avoided with the application of the principles of corporate governance. As such, the paper will present a case study that can be used as a reference for future research on the enforceability and justiciability of these principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]