Africa: Beyond Africa – Why the AU Needs a Broader Definition of Reparations

To implement the landmark UN slavery resolution, reparations should be defined as a framework for truth, responsibility, repair, reconciliation and global justice.

Ghana recently hosted a conference on Africa’s next steps following the landmark United Nations (UN) resolution declaring the trafficking of African slaves as the ‘gravest crime against humanity.’ Ghana led the process to secure the resolution’s passage and, at the June conference, sought to map out an AU reparations implementation plan.

However, like earlier AU reparations instruments adopted since the 1993 Abuja Proclamation, the conference commitments do not provide a comprehensive definition of reparations. They articulate the objectives, guiding principles and main forms of reparatory justice while leaving the concept itself undefined.

This omission may be due to the reparations agenda’s political nature and evolving character, but an unclear definition enables continued objections to the movement. Critics often challenge individual measures such as monetary compensation, as though they define reparations as a whole, and treat symbolic measures like apology or memorialisation as sufficient. Accordingly, debates frequently focus on types of reparation rather than the broader concept of reparatory justice.

A comprehensive definition, constructed from five mutually reinforcing elements rooted in African conceptions of restorative and transitional justice – most inferred from relevant AU instruments – could provide greater conceptual clarity.

First, as enshrined in the AU Transitional Justice Policy (AUTJP), meaningful reparations depend on accurate and authoritative accounts of historical injustice. This requires acknowledging not just the harms suffered but also the structures that enabled them and the conduct of all who participated or benefitted.

A reparative process concerning slavery, the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism must acknowledge the full historical record. This must include the central responsibility of European states and colonial institutions, while recognising that some African leaders and merchants participated in the capture and sale of fellow Africans.

Such acknowledgement neither diminishes the responsibility of the transatlantic slave-trading powers nor relativises colonialism. It reflects the principle that reparatory justice must be grounded in comprehensive historical truth, not selective memory.

The truth about slavery, colonialism, apartheid, genocide, racial discrimination and related systems of oppression extends beyond the past to acknowledge their enduring political, economic, social and cultural consequences. Historical injustice is not a closed chapter of history but a continuing harm that must be acknowledged before meaningful repair can occur.

Second, there is an inextricable link between reparations and unconditional apology, which explains why the Accra conference identifies this as vital. This also explains why the reparations agenda rejects Western states’ qualified support for the UN resolution. While Western states partly accepted the legal characterisation of these historical injustices, they did not endorse the resolution’s full normative implications or accept any obligation to provide reparations.

An unconditional apology means acknowledging wrongdoing, accepting responsibility and committing to repair. Without these, reparations risk being perceived as forced transfers or political concessions rather than expressions of restorative justice. By acknowledging wrongfulness, affirming the dignity of those harmed and expressing genuine remorse, an unconditional apology enables reconciliation, with victims choosing to extend forgiveness.

An unconditional apology also reflects the principle that responsibility is autonomous, not reciprocal. African actors’ willingness to acknowledge the participation by Africans in the slave trade cannot be a prerequisite for former slave-trading or colonial powers to recognise their own responsibility. Nor does the latter’s failure absolve the former.

The notion of unconditional apology also distinguishes reparations from development assistance, humanitarian cooperation, foreign aid and regular economic partnerships. Unless accompanied by an acknowledgement of historical wrongdoing, acceptance of responsibility and intention to repair harms, such measures represent cooperation, not reparatory justice.

Third, reparative measures must be broad enough to match the scale and enduring consequences of historical injustice. Because the legacies of slavery and colonialism are both structural and individual, reparations extend beyond financial compensation.

The measures are articulated in AU and related instruments on reparations. They include restitution, rehabilitation, memorialisation, restitution of cultural heritage, institutional reform, debt relief, technology transfer, development cooperation, guarantees of non-recurrence, global governance reforms and greater African representation in international institutions.

The Netherlands and Germany’s recent commitments to return cultural artefacts to Ghana, and Denmark’s reaffirmation of its apology and support for preserving former slave-trading sites, show some of these measures in action. However reparative measures are not separate political demands, but complementary forms of justice aimed at repairing harm, restoring dignity and addressing structural inequalities.

Fourth, African conceptions of justice understand reparations as fundamentally relational. As reflected in the AUTJP, reparations are both restorative and a pathway to reconciliation, serving not only victims but also those who committed, enabled or benefitted from historical injustice.

Reparations are not just about restoring dignity to Africans and their descendants. They allow former colonial powers to confront and embrace responsibility for historical injustice and rebuild relationships grounded in equality, mutual respect and shared humanity.

Fifth, reparations are a global justice project. Slavery, the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism, apartheid, genocide and related exploitation systems shaped the modern international political, economic and legal order. Their consequences continue to influence patterns of wealth, development, representation and global governance.

So, reparations must seek not only to repair Africa and its people but also a world that still bears the imprint of historical injustice. By recognising aspects of these injustices as crimes against humanity at both the AU and UN levels, the reparations agenda has assumed a universal dimension.

This explains the importance of third states. While bearing neither historical responsibility nor legal liability, they can contribute to reparatory justice by supporting international norms, multilateral institutions and reforms for a more equitable global order. Their support for the UN slavery resolution reflects an emerging consensus that confronting these historical injustices is a shared international responsibility.

Reparations should be advanced through at least these five interrelated elements as a restorative and transformative process in which truth, responsibility, repair, reconciliation and global solidarity combine to restore both Africa and the global order.

The AU should consider adopting these principles as the conceptual framework underpinning its reparations agenda. This would provide a common language for member states, shape the proposed Global Reparations Fund, inform future negotiations with international partners and enable Africa to articulate a coherent, unified and principled vision of reparatory justice in global governance.

By ISS.