Black Code: Parliament adopts its symbolic repeal, without resolving the issue of reparations

On Tuesday, 20 October 2026, Parliament completed the adoption of the bill repealing the Black Code. The Senate voted without amendment the text of the Member of Parliament Max Mathiasin, member of the Freedom, Independent, Overseas and Territories (Liot) group, approved by the National Assembly in May. BFMTV, 20 Minutes and RFI report on the same vote, the publication of which confirms the parliamentary outcome. [S1] [S2] [S3] [S6]

A formal repeal, not a new abolition

The distinction was essential: the provisions organizing slavery had already had no legal effect since its abolition in 1848. Their absence from express repeal therefore did not mean that they could still be applied. The vote formally removes vestiges of slavery rights; It does not remove a power to enslave that would have survived until today. It is on this essentially symbolic scope that the three media converge. [S1] [S2] [S3]

The text adopted refers to the March 1685 edict as well as to all measures taken for its application, adaptation or extension to other territories. It also recognizes that legislation that has institutionalized the reduction of human beings to property status, their deportation, exploitation and violence against them is inseparable from the crime against humanity recognized by the Act of 21 May 2001. The Senate publication establishes the final adoption by Parliament, but does not in itself attest to the enactment. [S6]

The consequences of these rules for people were concrete: they could be bought or sold as "movable property". Their escape was punishable by mutilation, iron marking or death. This system was therefore not limited to a discriminatory legal status: it organized the denial of individual autonomy and punished the attempt to escape the domination of a master. [S1] [S3]

For the Overseas Minister, Naïma Moutchou, the repeal meets a requirement of recognition: "This text belongs to our history, not to our legislation. This position distinguishes the preservation of historical knowledge of the maintenance of texts in law, even when they have become inoperative. [S1] [S2]

Broad support, reserves in the territories covered

The agreement on principle does not remove objections to drafting. Victorin Lurel and Senator Réunionnaise Évelyne Corbière Naminzo regretted the lack of explicit mention of the texts that governed slavery in the Indian Ocean, particularly in Reunion. Naïma Moutchou defended a general formula covering the whole system, believing that a detailed list might forget certain provisions. The disagreement thus concerns how to ensure a complete repeal. [S1] [S2] [S3]

BFMTV and RFI present the vote as unanimous while reporting the Communist group's abstention. This presentation must therefore be distinguished from the adoption of support from all senators: abstentions and reservations expressed are also part of the political record of the election. [S1] [S3]

A government report, but no compensation created

The government will have to follow up. In the year following the promulgation of the Act, it will have to submit to Parliament a report identifying the provisions of colonial law still in force in the ultramarine territories. This work will have to analyse their economic, social, cultural and environmental consequences, as well as the processes of discrimination and racism, and the lasting effects of this legacy on the descendants of the enslaved. The text therefore requires an analysis: it does not set the conclusions in advance. [S6]

The report should also assess the place of slavery, trafficking and its abolition in school curricula. It will propose ways to strengthen this teaching and develop places of memory and research. These provisions do not constitute an immediate modification of the programmes or the allocation of specific funding. [S6]

On the other hand, no specific compensation or redress mechanism is created. Several parliamentarians recalled, according to RFI and 20 Minutes, that post-abolition compensation had benefited former slave owners, not freed people. For those who are now demanding reparations, the vote provides symbolic recognition, but no financial response. Potential beneficiaries, modalities and funding of possible repairs remain outside the agreed text. [S2] [S3] [S6]