Apparently defamatory statements had been posted about Navin Ramgoolam (NR), the Mauritian PM. Also someone had created a profile in which he impersonated NR.

Both of these are illegal under the Facebook Terms of Use and Content Code of Conduct. Facebook also has a form for submitting details of an imposter. Requests are generally handle quite fast, especially if the person being impersonated is a public figure.

The ICTA gets it's power from the ICT Act 2001. They blocked Facebook using their powers under section 18 (1) (m): "The authority shall take steps to regulate or curtail the harmful and illegal content on the Internet and other information and communication services". My interpretation of "harmful" is "harmful to the members of the public" (not to a private individual) and "illegal" I understand "something someone can be prosecuted for" (this is not the case for defamation although identity theft is, but I have my reservations on whether impersonating someone on Facebook amounts to identity theft).

Even assuming they had the power to block a site for these reasons why block the whole of Facebook? Why not only the pages containing these offences?

Section 12 of the Constitution of Mauritius guarantees the right of every person (living in Mauritius) the right "to receive and impart ideas and information without interference". This is of course subject to restrictions necessary in a democratic society. Such restrictions are generally applied by a law or by an order of the court. In the case of the law it will deal with things like "It is illegal to make a lot of noise outside someone else's home after 11pm" (i.e. with a a general case which is easy to interpret and enforceable by the executive) or by the court in cases of defamation for example (with the court gaining the power to do so from a law).

The police has no right to prevent people from reading a newspaper, if they think it contains defamatory statements, without an order from the court. Doing so would be a violation of freedom of expression as well as a violation of the principle of separation of powers. The current situation is similar, you just have to swap "police" for "ICTA" and "newspaper" for "website".

The only other justification [sic] for blocking facebook would be the "identity theft". As I said I have my reservations on whether this really amounts to identity theft. But let us assume for the sake of argument that it amounts to it. Consider the following thought experiment (which is very likely to occur in reality): 4 teenagers Alice (A), Ben (B), Chris (C), Dona (D). A is going out with B. But C also wants to go out with A. C then creates a Facebook profile impersonating Ben (who does not have one) and he posts that he (B) had sex with D (which is not true). In this case C commits an identity theft (which is a criminal offence), he defames B and D and he also intrudes their privacy. Now B finds out about this and does not want anyone to find about this page on Facebook. He therefore contacts the ICTA asking them to use their powers under section 18 (1) (m) of the ICT Act to block Facebook. What do you think the ICTA will do? Will they block Facebook or will they tell the boy to get lost and sort it out himself?
I doubt they will block Facebook. However in the eyes of the law B and Navin Ramgoolam are two citizens of Mauritius with equal rights and should be protected equally by the law. By doing what they have done the ICTA have clearly shown that Ramgoolam is more important in their eyes than any random citizen.

The ICTA has only used it's powers to block a website twice in the past. In both of these cases it was because pornographic images had been included in non-pornographic website. These two website (a website of the government and the Mahatma Gandhi Institute website) were both in the .mu domain (i.e. in the jurisdiction of Mauritius). It is therefore the first time a foreign site is blocked from Mauritius. It is a very sad first time for Mauritius and may cause Mauritius to be included in the watchlist of the OpenNet Initiative.

I believe that someone in Mauritius should seek a declaratory judgement from the courts stating that the ICTA acted beyond it's powers by blocking Facebook, that in any case blocking a website was not a proportional response and falls within Wednesbury unreasonableness (i.e. if the petition for judicial review was brought while the ban was on, the courts could have restored Facebook regardless of the fact the courts believe the ICTA acted within it's powers).

It should be also be sought from the Constitutional Court that section 18 (1) (m) (more specifically the "and illegal...") of the ICT Act 2001 be declared unconstitutional. The argument to be used is one similar to the one used in The State v. Khoyratty (Mauritius) [2006] UKPC 13. The argument basically consists of saying that section 18 (1) (m) of the Act takes a power away from the Judiciary to give it to the Executive and is therefore a violation of separation of powers and section 1 of the Constitution of Mauritius (which says that Mauritius is a democratic Republic). If this argument seems a bit far stretched then read the judgement of the Privy Council and my post about the application of this judgement to Seychelles, once I have finished writing it. Another ground of unconstitutionality is section 12 of the Constitution of Mauritius (freedom of expression).

The People of Mauritius must stand up for their rights and defend them whatever it takes. They might want to be reminded of the wise words of Judge Domah in HURNAM D. v STATE & ORS 2007 SCJ 140 : "When the people of Mauritius pledged their faith and Charter-ed the way public institutions as well as other citizens should conduct their affairs under the law, they also indicated the route anyone among them should take in protection, and for the purpose, of enforcing his constitutional rights. For they knew that rights of citizens enshrined in the Constitution mean nothing unless they provided therein a mechanism for the purpose of enforcing them effectively."