Tiko case : The HAT Justice minister suspends la « wrong » court decision

 
Is there any ground for fun when the HAT Justice minister is topping the headlines for having asked the District attorney to suspend the judge’s decision? No, unless the so named decision is favorable to the HAT! In a speech broadcasted by a private TV channel, Hanitra Razafimanantsoa even let out a smile out of it. She was amazed when reading in newspapers that minister Razanamahasoa asked for the immediate suspension of April 14th, 2010’s  order N°67’s execution. 
 
According to the lawyer, wrong information has been provided to the minister who did not  commit to conduct check up since the order was supposed to be the one granting victory to Antananarivo city’s Trade Chamber against Tiko. The so-called decision allowed the authorities to ban the opposition’s three mobilities from demonstrating in the Magro square Ankorondrano. Thanks to this blunder, Marc Ravalomanana’s supporters and their allies are theorically able to recover “the place of legality”. 
 
Tiko’s lawyer explained that the HAT Justice minister was keen on suspending the order granting victory to the Tiko group against the HAT state. The judicial decision’s consequence is a halt of the elimination process directed against the industrial group founded by Marc Ravalomanana. According to M. Razafimanantsoa’s explanations, Tiko’s officials are allowed to recover the facilities, and all those assigned to make sure that they are not running are compelled to leave. The judge has thereupon ordered to remove the authorities’ seals. 
 
This was just the first part of it, the HAT state is going to have to pay. The Tiko group is asked to make an account of its losses to be compared with state owed debts. The biggest ever Malagasy enterprise’s attorneys are rating that all of the rice ceased by force by the HAT from Toamasina’s harbor in 2009 largely repays whatever TIko’s debts to the state. The authoritarian regime was keen on forcing Tiko pay previously granted legally tax advantages back while joyfully extending invoice. This maneuver had a couple of incentives: the need for cash, and the will to kill the Ravalomanana enterprise.   
 
M. Razafimanantsoa denounced the on going misuse of justice. She argued that having the court compelled to give in to orders from above as well as minister entitled to suspend court decisions should be a scandal for all magistrates. The “on public order account” does not convince anybody anymore.  A simple “message” would be enough to rule out a judge on purely “political” account. No wonder that the Magistrates’ Union had turned its back to the HAT to defend its independence.