The vote on the cybercrime bill has been postponed. Deputies want to deepen examination of the text, given the stakes involving security imperatives and the preservation of fundamental freedoms. Deputies voted to delay adoption of the cybercrime law yesterday. The matter will be revisited at a future session. At the end of the extraordinary session of the National Assembly yesterday, deputies agreed to postpone to a future parliamentary session the vote on five draft laws, including one overhauling the cybercrime legislation. Members of the lower chamber believe they need more time to conduct thorough examination of the texts in question. The first postponement decision concerned the cybercrime bill and the one on electronic communications and digital infrastructure. In his closing remarks yesterday, Siteny Randrialasoloniaiko, president of the Tsimbazaza institution, highlighted the potential socio-political impact of these two texts. "I dare not imagine what would have happened in the country if we had not decided to adjourn the adoption of these two draft laws," said the speaker. The cybercrime bill, in particular, has crystallized debates in recent days. The new provisions in the text pit security concerns against those related to preserving individual freedoms, notably freedom of expression and freedom of opinion. Respect for individual and democratic freedoms was central to demands during protests in September and October 2025. This draft law contains ninety-six articles divided into twelve chapters. It aims to establish a new legal framework to address new forms of cybercrime. Beyond digital fraud, the bill introduces sanctions against cyber-harassment, offenses related to cryptocurrency and AI, as well as what is commonly called "sextortion." It also aims to strengthen efforts against and penalties for child sexual abuse material and online child sexual exploitation. Certain provisions of the text raise concerns about respect for freedoms. For example, it introduces strict provisions targeting fake accounts, false profiles, and fraudulent use of digital identities. Article 17 specifically provides for "imprisonment of two to five years and a fine of 5,000,000 ariary to 50,000,000 ariary." This criminal penalty applies notably to "acts of creating, organizing, managing or knowingly participating in a coordinated network of information manipulation, through fake accounts, automated accounts or any other means, with a view to committing or facilitating the commission of an offense provided for by this law." The bill also seeks to hold administrators of digital spaces and individual internet users accountable. This is, however, criminal liability. The text does provide that intentional character and willful failure to remove a publication after notification or court decision must be previously determined. The chapter establishing the Digital Protection and Investigation Unit (Upin) is another source of concern emphasized in debates on the cybercrime bill. The text grants it broad powers. It can "request electronic communications operators and digital service providers to communicate data whose retention is provided for by current legislation." It is particularly Article 75 that draws attention. "Upin has direct technical access, permanent and continuously available (24 hours a day, 7 days a week), to the information systems of electronic communications operators, internet service providers, registration centers and any other body holding data necessary for investigations within its jurisdiction (...)," states this provision. This provision adds that "this access covers identification, subscription, traffic and, where applicable, content data (...)." The aforementioned entities are required to guarantee permanent technical availability of this access. In case of unjustified refusal, they face fines ranging from 100 million to 500 million ariary. Criminal or administrative sanctions may be added. Upin's prerogatives refer to provisions of the bill relating to electronic communications and digital infrastructure. This text introduces the concepts of digital sovereignty and data sovereignty. It seeks, among other things, that "all digital data generated, collected or processed on the territory fall under..."