Mauritius entered the apostille system not by its own accession but through an extension inherited from the colonial period; the “Su” marker in its HCCH row says so. This page is written for offices and banks in Port Louis and for Turks doing business there. It explains the two dates in the succession record, the Apostille Section in the Prime Minister’s Office, the objection to Kosovo and the place of translation.
From a United Kingdom extension to succession
According to the HCCH notifications page, the Convention applied to Mauritius, then under British administration, through an extension made by the United Kingdom on 24 February 1965. After independence Mauritius stayed bound by a notification of succession; the Su marker means succession, not accession or ratification. The HCCH record lists no objection to Mauritius. When Türkiye ratified in 1985, Mauritius was already on the table; the relationship began on Türkiye’s date, 29 September 1985, and the full status report shows no exception between them.
20 December 1968 or 12 March 1968: a date that runs backwards
The Mauritius row looks odd at first sight: the notification date is 20 December 1968, but the Convention applies to Mauritius from 12 March 1968, nine months earlier. In a succession the commitment runs back to the date of independence, so the country counts as bound without a break from the day it became independent. For a Turkish file the gap changes nothing, as the relationship between the two countries started in 1985; the point is worth making so that a reader of the HCCH table does not take the two dates for an error. Both dates are read from the HCCH record; they were not checked against Mauritian sources.
The Apostille Section and the July 2026 authority page
According to the HCCH authority page, updated on 10 July 2026, the certifying power in Mauritius sits with the Prime Minister’s Office, where the work is done by the Apostille Section of the Defence and Home Affairs Division. The certificate is thus issued from within the head of government’s office. The fee is stated in rupees in two tiers, and the page refers to a communiqué of the Prime Minister’s Office for details; the amounts are not reproduced here, and which tier applies to which document was not verified on this site. The e-APP chart of 13 August 2026 has no Mauritius row, and no online register is reported.
Mauritius and Kosovo: the effect in a three-country file
The full status report lists Mauritius among the states that objected to the accession of Kosovo. The objection does not touch Turkish documents, because Türkiye did not object to Kosovo. It shows only in a file where a document from Kosovo is sent to Port Louis: before a Mauritian authority that document cannot rely on a Kosovar apostille, and a Mauritian document bound for Kosovo meets the same limit. Which route applies between Mauritius and Kosovo instead is not stated in the sources read for this site. The objection is taken from the HCCH notifications as they read on the date of checking and could change if withdrawn. Mauritius has not acceded to ETS 063, CIEC 16 or CIEC 17, and it is listed among the Members of the Hague Conference.
Translation on a Mauritian file
For a Turkish document going to Mauritius, the certificate comes from a Turkish authority. An administrative document is certified by a valilik or kaymakamlık, a provincial or district governor’s office, and each notarial act is certified by one of these governor’s offices too. The original of a court judgment goes to the adli yargı adalet komisyonu başkanlığı. e-Apostil exists for six document types; how Mauritian institutions accept a Turkish electronic certificate was not verified. Which language and which certification Mauritian institutions require on a translation of a Turkish document was not verified by this site’s survey. On a translation done in Türkiye the certificate is placed on the notary’s certification and speaks to the signature, not to the accuracy of the text. A Mauritian document is translated into Turkish after the certificate is placed. A translation office renders the text and gives no legal opinion on how the Kosovo objection affects a particular file.