In July, the Justice Ministry notified courts on case processing procedures. Discipline has struck the Justice Ministry. Three judges from the Anti-Corruption Pole (PAC) in Antananarivo have been suspended from their duties. Fifteen prison officers from Imerintsiatosika prison have also received suspension orders. Two separate disciplinary decisions, but one common reason: failures observed in the exercise of responsibilities. The information was made public by the Justice Ministry in a statement released Thursday, August 27, 2026. At the Anti-Corruption Pole in Antananarivo, three judges were suspended. The sanction follows inspections and evaluations conducted by the court oversight bureau under the Justice Ministry. According to the ministry, investigations revealed failures in the exercise of duties, particularly in case processing. The ministry also cited non-compliance with obligations and responsibilities inherent to their positions. It emphasized that the suspension decision was made by the PAC Monitoring and Evaluation Committee following this control process. However, the statement provides neither the exact nature of the cases involved nor the duration of the suspensions. Effectiveness This measure comes as the PACs hold a central place in the fight against corruption. Any failure in case processing by these specialized courts can take on particular significance, both judicially and in terms of the perceived effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts. At Imerintsiatosika, a prison escape triggered the disciplinary procedure. Fifteen prison officers were suspended following an inmate's escape on August 7, 2026. The Justice Ministry reported "failures" in the exercise of responsibilities entrusted to the officers concerned. Sanctions were decided following investigations by the prison inspection directorate, according to the Justice Ministry. However, the escape did not long elude searches. The inmate was eventually found, the ministry states. On one side, judges tasked with handling corruption cases. On the other, officers responsible for prisoner supervision. In both cases, the Justice Ministry emphasizes the same principle: that professional responsibility cannot be separated from obligations attached to the position. These eighteen suspensions thus constitute a strong disciplinary signal. They also show that inspections and internal control mechanisms can now result in sanctions when failures are found. It remains to be seen whether this firmness will be isolated or whether it signals more systematic oversight of courts and the prison administration.