The High Constitutional Court has declared constitutional a provision granting preferential treatment to the judiciary. Fierce controversy surrounds the validation by the High Constitutional Court of Organic Law No. 2026-003 reforming the Statute of the Judiciary. In its decision No. 10-HCC/D3 of July 8, 2026, the constitutional judges of Ambohidahy gave the green light for implementation of this text, which appears tailor-made to grant preferential treatment to magistrates. Notably regarding Article 16 relating to the facilitation of procedures authorizing weapon possession and carrying for magistrates. Paragraph 3 of this provision states that "The magistrate has the right to possess and carry weapons in compliance with weapons legislation, without requiring prior authorization. However, he must make a declaration to the Ministry of Justice." From now on, magistrates are no longer required to comply with the long and difficult procedure for requesting authorization to possess and carry firearms, like all other citizens. For them, a simple declaration to their supervising Ministry suffices. In its decision, the High Constitutional Court refers to "a regime derogating from common weapons law in favor of magistrates." In the eyes of observers, with this provision, the judiciary is placed above the law. What then of respect for the principle of equality before the law? It should be recalled that for ordinary citizens, it is the Ministry of Interior and Decentralization that is authorized to grant weapon possession and carrying permits. Moreover, under the previous regime, issuance had been suspended to combat weapons proliferation and curb the growing insecurity that prevailed in the country. Ambohidahy therefore declared Article 16 of the Organic Law on the Statute of the Judiciary constitutional, while expressing reservations about Articles 21 to 26. The constitutional judges emphasize the existence of a contradiction, particularly in the third paragraph which calls on magistrates to comply with current weapons legislation, which in principle subjects weapon possession and carrying to a prior administrative authorization regime issued by competent authorities. And on the other hand, the same paragraph expressly excludes any "prior authorization," imposing only a simple declaration to the Ministry of Justice. "The two prescriptions are irreconcilable and do not allow determining whether the magistrate remains subject to the common law authorization regime or is entirely exempt from it in favor of an autonomous declarative regime," the HCC states. Hence the decision to grant a regime derogating from common weapons law in favor of magistrates. For now, it is unclear whether the categories of weapons that can be used by the latter are provided for in this text or not, as it must be noted that in Madagascar, only second and third category weapons, namely handguns and hunting or sporting weapons, can be used by civilians. In any case, generally speaking, the reforms made to the Statute of the Judiciary will certainly further strengthen the power of magistrates over other citizens. They risk fueling abuses and misconduct of all kinds in the absence of specific texts serving as guidelines.