The Constitutional Court has halted a radical sanction provided in the new magistracy statute law. The automatic dismissal of magistrates convicted of corruption is deemed unconstitutional.

The High Constitutional Court (HCC) has ruled that the final paragraph of Article 56 of the organic law reforming the magistracy statute is unconstitutional and must be removed. This decision was published yesterday following the court's constitutional review of the text.

The contested provision mandates automatic dismissal of magistrates upon final conviction for corruption or related offenses. Despite being a flagship measure of the law adopted by the National Assembly on June 5, it is one of only two provisions the HCC has invalidated and ordered removed.

The invalidated provision states: "Any magistrate, without distinction of rank, function or position, subject to final conviction for corruption or related offenses, as well as any magistrate sentenced by final court decision to an afflictive or infamous penalty, is automatically and without exception dismissed from the judiciary."

The HCC acknowledged that fighting corruption was a legislative objective. The law's preamble noted that Madagascar's justice system has suffered from lost public confidence due to corruption cases, perceived bias, and procedural delays, necessitating deep reform to restore trust.

However, the court argued that while anti-corruption efforts are legitimate, they cannot violate constitutional requirements governing disciplinary power. The Constitution grants the Superior Council of the Judiciary (CSM) exclusive competence to determine appropriate sanctions for magistrates.

"This exclusive competence implies the Council has discretionary power to choose disciplinary measures proportionate to the facts," the HCC explained. By imposing automatic dismissal without allowing the CSM any discretion, the provision deprives the body of its power to individualize sanctions, violating its constitutionally recognized exclusive authority.

The principle of individualization requires all disciplinary measures be proportionate and adapted to the gravity of offenses. The HCC further noted that automatic dismissal gives revocation the character of an accessory penalty attached automatically to criminal conviction, without the adversarial phase inherent to disciplinary procedure.

The court emphasized that respect for defense rights is a fundamental constitutional principle applicable to all disciplinary proceedings. The HCC concluded that substituting mechanical application of the severest disciplinary sanction for the CSM's individualized assessment violates the principle of individualization, the CSM's exclusive disciplinary competence, and defense rights.