By Emmanuel Nduka
Madagascar is taking a major step towards addressing the unfinished legacy of colonialism after its High Constitutional Court cleared a law allowing the state to reclaim certain properties still registered in the names of foreign settlers more than six decades after the country gained independence.
The ruling, delivered on August 3, validates Law No. 2026-007 and paves the way for the government to take ownership of land that remained registered in foreign names at the time of independence but was never subsequently transferred to Malagasy citizens.
At the centre of the legislation is June 26, 1960, the date Madagascar gained independence from French colonial rule.
Under the new law, land that was still registered in a foreign name on that date and has never since been transferred to a Malagasy owner will automatically become state property.
The High Constitutional Court described the measure as part of efforts to complete the de facto transfer of colonial-era foreign-registered land, restore the rights of the Malagasy people and strengthen state control over strategic property.
The National Assembly approved the legislation on July 1 before it was sent to the Constitutional Court for constitutional review.
Although France is not explicitly mentioned in the legislation, the historical context is unmistakable.
French colonial rule left behind land records in the names of foreign settlers, creating ownership questions that have survived more than 60 years after Madagascar became independent.
The new law seeks to address part of that unresolved legacy by transferring qualifying properties into state ownership.
In that sense, the measure goes beyond a conventional land reform. It places land ownership at the centre of Madagascar’s continuing effort to assert control over assets inherited from the colonial period.
It also adds another layer to Madagascar’s broader sovereignty disputes with France.
The island nation has previously invoked decolonisation in its dispute with Paris over the Scattered Islands in the Mozambique Channel, a territorial disagreement that continues to influence relations between the two countries.
The latest land reform brings the question of sovereignty closer to home, shifting the focus from disputed territory to property ownership and economic control.
Yet the legislation does not provide for the indiscriminate takeover of foreign-owned land.
Properties used by foreign diplomatic and consular missions are excluded from the automatic transfer provisions.
Land that had already been transferred to Malagasy citizens before the June 26, 1960 cut-off is also protected.
Foreign nationals who later acquired Malagasy citizenship and properly registered their naturalisation with the relevant land authorities are similarly exempt.
The exemptions appear designed to protect diplomatic interests and prevent the law from reopening ownership arrangements that have already been legally regularised.
For supporters of the reform, the potential benefits extend beyond the historical symbolism.
State ownership of reclaimed properties could eventually create opportunities for Malagasy citizens to gain access to land through existing administrative procedures, particularly in rural communities where secure land tenure remains a major challenge.
Clearer ownership could encourage agricultural investment, strengthen property rights and contribute to local economic development.
But Madagascar’s land system has long been plagued by outdated records, informal occupation, disputed titles and lengthy registration procedures.
Those challenges could make implementation of the new law considerably more complicated than the constitutional ruling itself.
The country has attempted to resolve elements of its colonial-era land legacy before.
A 2015 law seeking to transfer land formerly owned by colonial settlers was struck down by the High Constitutional Court over constitutional shortcomings.
The latest legislation appears to have been designed to provide a stronger legal foundation for addressing the issue.
For investors and current landholders, however, the reform presents both opportunities and risks.
The law must first be promulgated and published in the Official Journal before it can be fully implemented. Authorities will then have to identify the properties covered by the legislation, examine historical ownership records and determine which parcels qualify for transfer.
That process could expose competing claims, incomplete documentation and ownership histories that stretch across several generations.
For investors, the crucial question will be whether the reform ultimately provides greater certainty over disputed land titles or introduces another layer of uncertainty into Madagascar’s property market.
The government will have to balance its desire to expand Malagasy ownership with the need to preserve confidence in the country’s legal and investment framework.
The constitutional ruling, therefore, is only the beginning.
Once the law takes effect, authorities will face the difficult task of identifying affected properties, verifying ownership records and transferring qualifying parcels into the state’s land portfolio.
What happens afterwards could determine the lasting significance of the reform.
If reclaimed properties are transparently managed and made available for productive use by Malagasy citizens, the law could become an important instrument for addressing historical inequalities in land ownership.
But if the process is vulnerable to political influence, bureaucratic abuse or elite capture, a reform framed as a return of land to the people could simply replace one form of concentrated ownership with another.
That is why Madagascar’s latest move is about more than land.
It is a test of how a post-colonial African state can confront unresolved questions of ownership, sovereignty and historical justice while protecting the legal certainty needed for economic development.
More than six decades after independence, Madagascar is attempting to draw a new line under a chapter of its colonial past.
Whether the reform ultimately delivers meaningful land access for Malagasy citizens or becomes another source of legal and political controversy will depend not on the court ruling alone, but on how the government carries the reclamation process from law to reality.
