Bill No. 042/2026 on combating cybercrime is set for adoption by deputies on Friday at the National Assembly. The text is among projects filed at Tsimbazaza and will be debated in plenary session. Presented as an adaptation of legislation to new digital threats, the reform primarily grants the State significantly enhanced investigative capabilities. The main innovation is the creation of the Digital Protection and Investigation Unit (Upin). This digital police force will be tasked with preventing and detecting cyber offences, conducting technical investigations, and supporting the judiciary. Its prerogatives are broad. Article 75 notably provides for direct and permanent technical access, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, to information systems of electronic communications operators, internet service providers, and other organizations holding data necessary for investigations. Identification, subscription, traffic, and under certain conditions, content may be involved. Safeguards are planned: traceability of consultations, judicial control, and notification of the prosecutor or investigating judge for certain access. Upin may also intervene, following a complaint and under conditions provided by law, to urgently obtain provisional blocking or removal of manifestly illegal content. The security stakes are real. Fraud, identity theft, cyberstalking, sexual exploitation of children, and new forms of crime facilitated by technology require appropriate resources. The government presents the reform as a response to the rapid evolution of digital offences. But the scope of proposed powers raises another issue: that of public freedoms, data protection, and the balance between security and freedom of expression. One question becomes difficult to avoid: how can journalists and citizens be asked to verify before sharing if access to official sources remains an obstacle course? The contrast is particularly striking because the bill on access to public information is not advancing at the same pace. Text No. 017/2025 currently appears as "commission examination adjourned" on the National Assembly website. Its examination in plenary session was postponed indefinitely. How can false information be effectively combated when data to refute it is not easily accessible? How can a journalist be required to verify a claim about the administration if official documents remain difficult to obtain? And how can internet users be held more accountable without simultaneously strengthening citizens' right to know about public action? Another concern involves the Code of Mediated Communication. The Ministry of Communication and Culture launched in February a broad reform process for texts relating to freedom of expression. Regional consultations subsequently brought together 234 journalists, young people, and civil society representatives. The Communication Code and the information access law were even identified among priority texts. A roadmap provides for a Code reform proposal during the October parliamentary session. For now, however, it is the new cybercrime legislation that comes before deputies. This scheduling difference inevitably fuels questions. Is the government seeking only to better combat digital crime or does it also wish to have additional means to contain criticism circulating on social networks? At this stage, nothing suggests that Upin's creation pursues this second objective. The extent of its prerogatives nonetheless justifies raising the question of democratic control. Vigilance is all the more necessary because state control of the internet is a marker of regimes regularly criticized for restricting digital freedoms, particularly in Russia or North Korea. Drawing a direct parallel with Madagascar would be premature. But their experience reminds us how far instruments initially presented in the name of security can go when not accompanied by solid checks and balances. The reference to Russia takes on particular significance in the current diplomatic context: Antananarivo and Moscow are displaying their willingness to strengthen cooperation, including in digital and security fields. This demonstrates no link with the cybercrime bill, but reinforces the importance of transparent debate on democratic guarantees surrounding the State's new digital powers.