Royal edicts and legal codes confirm the findings of historians Bakoly Domenichini-Ramiaramanana and Jean Pierre Domenichini regarding the status of slaves in the Merina Kingdom. The term ‘andevo very’ (lost slave) suggests the possibility of manumission, a right protected unless a formal legal conviction stripped it away. Notably, only two offenses punishable by permanent enslavement were recognized, a provision later abolished by the 305-article Code issued by Queen Ranavalona II in 1881.
The right to manumit belonged solely to the master. Under King Andrianampoinimerina, a master who freed a slave (‘votsorana’) had to pay a ‘volatsivaky’ (a full piastre) to the King. A slave seeking self-redemption (‘miavo-tena’) would pay an agreed sum to their master and provide an ox for a feast, serving as a ‘purification ox’ required by the ‘fokonolona’ (community) into which the freed individual was being integrated.
Integration rules were strictly defined: slaves of ‘Andriana’ descent returned to their ancestral groups, ‘Zazahova’ were integrated into the ‘Hova’ class, and ‘Andevo’ into the ‘Mainty enin-dreny’. However, freedom was not absolute; restrictions were imposed on certain freed individuals, such as the ‘vorom-potsy’ (white birds) or ‘valala mpiandry fasana’ (grave-guarding locusts), who were prohibited from leaving the lands of their former masters under threat of re-enslavement.
Masters were legally obligated to treat freed individuals with dignity. The law prohibited the treatment of free people as slaves (‘homana olom-potsy’), ensuring that former slaves were afforded legal protections, even if they did not immediately acquire the full rights of those born free.
Historians cite Article 48 of the 305-article Code, which addresses cases where a former slave adopted their former master as a child. While naturally free parents had absolute autonomy (‘masi-mandidy’) over their assets, a former slave faced legal hurdles if they wished to disinherit such an adoptive child, requiring proof of unworthiness.
Crucially, only the King held the power to impose the death penalty on a slave; masters were restricted to non-lethal physical discipline. Andrianampoinimerina established that the ‘andevo’ remained an ‘olona’ (person) provided they were not ‘very’ (lost/statusless). This recognition of personhood granted slaves a degree of legal responsibility, explaining why the harboring of a runaway slave was punished less severely than the theft of cattle—the slave was considered to share responsibility for their own flight.
Furthermore, monarchical law prohibited the permanent sale of land to slaves, treating them differently from foreigners, perhaps in anticipation of their eventual manumission. Ultimately, the edicts framed the slave as a perpetual minor, legally dependent on the master, who remained civilly responsible for the slave’s actions.
Captured & Published at: 2026-07-07 05:43:31 (Madagascar Local Time EAT)
Original Source: https://www.lexpress.mg/2026/07/statut-et-droits-de-lesclave-sous-la.html