Mauritius Higher Education Commission — National Guidelines on the Use of AI in Higher Education

The Higher Education Commission (HEC), Mauritius's statutory regulator for higher education, published 'Guidelines on the Use of AI in Higher Education' in June 2025, authored by Professor Romeela Mohee and Dr Anjusha Durbarry through a seven-step Commonwealth of Learning (COL)-recommended policy process. The document is structured around four pillars — Governance; Teaching, Learning, Assessment & Research; Ethics; and the Future of AI in HE — and drew on three separate surveys of institutional leaders, academic staff and students, overseen by a stakeholder committee spanning the Ministry of Tertiary Education, Science and Research, the University of Mauritius, the Open University of Mauritius, the University of Technology Mauritius and the Mauritius Emerging Technologies Council.

Establish a national ethical and governance framework for AI use in higher education, grounded explicitly in Mauritian law — the right to privacy under Article 9 of the Constitution and Article 22 of the Code Civil Mauricien, the non-discrimination clause of Article 16, and the Data Protection Act 2017 (aligned with EU GDPR).

Institutions are advised to establish an 'AI Ethics and Compliance Committee' and an 'AI Risk and Audit Committee,' a formal channel to report data-privacy breaches, academic dishonesty and algorithmic bias, anonymisation/encryption/access-control requirements for student and staff data, and disclosure when AI is used in grading or admissions. The guidelines were formally launched by the Minister of Tertiary Education, Science and Research at a validation workshop with over 50 representatives from public and private institutions; the underlying initiative involved 95 staff across six public institutions.

The baseline survey underpinning the guidelines found that 65% of institutional leaders reported their institution lacked a formal AI policy, only 28% of academic staff and 23% of policymakers felt adequately trained in AI, and 59% of academic staff had never used AI for assessment or grading.

The framework is explicitly non-binding — the document repeatedly states 'the onus is on each HEI to develop its own Ethical AI Policy Framework,' with no described penalty regime for non-compliance — and is framed as 'a living document' that 'will continuously evolve,' meaning the June 2025 version is a first iteration rather than settled, enforced policy.