Why Africa Needs a Clearer Understanding of Reparations

Ghana recently held a conference to discuss Africa’s next steps after the UN declared the trafficking of African slaves the ‘gravest crime against humanity.’ Ghana led the effort to get this resolution passed. At the June conference, they aimed to create a plan for implementing reparations by the African Union (AU).

But, like past AU reparations agreements made since the 1993 Abuja Proclamation, the conference did not offer a clear definition of reparations. They outlined goals, guiding principles, and main forms of reparatory justice but did not define the concept itself.

This lack of definition may come from the political nature of the reparations agenda, which is constantly changing. But without a clear definition, people can continue to challenge the movement. Critics often focus on specific measures like cash compensation, as if these define reparations entirely, while treating symbolic actions like apologies or memorials as enough. Because of this, discussions often center on types of reparations instead of the wider idea of reparatory justice.

A clear definition, built from five key elements based on African ideas of restorative and transitional justice, could help clarify the concept. These elements can be drawn from relevant AU documents.

First, as stated in the AU Transitional Justice Policy (AUTJP), meaningful reparations rely on accurate accounts of historical injustices. This means recognizing not just the harm done but also the systems that allowed it and the actions of everyone involved or who benefited.

Addressing slavery, the transatlantic slave trade, and colonialism requires acknowledging the full historical context. This includes the major role of European countries and colonial institutions, while also acknowledging that some African leaders and merchants took part in the capture and sale of fellow Africans.

Recognizing this does not lessen the responsibility of those involved in the transatlantic slave trade. It shows that reparatory justice must be based on a complete historical truth, not a selective memory.

The truth about slavery, colonialism, apartheid, genocide, racial discrimination, and other forms of oppression goes beyond the past. It must also consider their lasting political, economic, social, and cultural effects. Historical injustices are not just history; they are ongoing issues that need to be recognized before real repairs can happen.

Second, there is a strong link between reparations and an unconditional apology. This is why the Accra conference sees it as essential. It also explains why the reparations agenda does not accept the limited support from Western countries for the UN resolution. While Western nations partly accepted the legal definition of these historical wrongs, they did not agree to the full implications or accept any duty to provide reparations.

An unconditional apology means admitting wrongdoing, taking responsibility, and committing to making things right. Without these, reparations might seem like forced transfers or political deals instead of true restorative justice. By admitting wrongs, affirming the dignity of those harmed, and showing genuine regret, an unconditional apology can help with reconciliation, allowing victims to decide to forgive.

An unconditional apology also emphasizes that responsibility is independent, not mutual. African leaders’ willingness to admit some Africans participated in the slave trade cannot be a condition for former slave-trading or colonial powers to recognize their own responsibility. Nor does the latter’s failure excuse the former.

The idea of an unconditional apology also sets reparations apart from development aid, humanitarian work, foreign assistance, and regular economic partnerships. Without acknowledging past wrongs, taking responsibility, and intending to repair damages, such efforts are just cooperation, not reparatory justice.

Third, reparative actions must be broad enough to reflect the scale and lasting effects of historical injustice. Because the impacts of slavery and colonialism are both structural and personal, reparations go beyond just financial payments.

The AU and related documents on reparations list various measures. These include restitution, rehabilitation, memorials, returning cultural heritage, reforming institutions, debt relief, technology transfer, development cooperation, and ensuring non-recurrence. Recent commitments from the Netherlands and Germany to return cultural artifacts to Ghana, as well as Denmark’s reaffirmation of its apology and support for preserving former slave-trading sites, show some of these actions in practice. But reparative measures are not just separate political demands; they are complementary forms of justice aimed at addressing harm, restoring dignity, and tackling structural inequalities.

Fourth, African ideas about justice see reparations as fundamentally about relationships. According to the AUTJP, reparations are both restorative and a way to achieve reconciliation, helping not only victims but also those who committed, enabled, or benefited from historical wrongs.

Reparations are not just about restoring dignity to Africans and their descendants. They also allow former colonial powers to face and accept responsibility for historical wrongs and build relationships based on equality, mutual respect, and shared humanity.

Fifth, reparations are a global justice issue. Slavery, the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism, apartheid, genocide, and related exploitation shaped the current international political, economic, and legal systems. Their effects still influence wealth, development, representation, and global governance today.

So, reparations should aim not just to heal Africa and its people but also to address a world still marked by historical injustices. By recognizing some of these wrongs as crimes against humanity at both AU and UN levels, the reparations agenda has gained a universal aspect.

This shows why third countries are important. While they do not bear historical blame or legal responsibility, they can help reparatory justice by supporting international norms, multilateral institutions, and reforms for a fairer global system. Their backing of the UN slavery resolution shows a growing agreement that facing these historical injustices is a shared global duty.

Reparations should be promoted through these five connected elements as a restorative and transformative process where truth, responsibility, repair, reconciliation, and global solidarity come together to restore both Africa and the global system.

The AU should think about adopting these principles as the foundation for its reparations agenda. This would create a common language for member states, shape the proposed Global Reparations Fund, guide future negotiations with international partners, and help Africa present a clear, united vision of reparatory justice in global discussions.