Why Africa Needs a Clearer Definition of Reparations

Ghana recently held a conference to discuss Africa's next steps after the United Nations (UN) recognized the trafficking of African slaves as the 'gravest crime against humanity.' Ghana played a key role in getting this resolution passed. At the June conference, they aimed to outline a plan for how the African Union (AU) can implement reparations.

But, like previous AU reparations agreements since the 1993 Abuja Proclamation, the commitments made at the conference fail to clearly define what reparations are. They mention the goals, principles, and main forms of reparative justice but do not explain the concept itself.

This lack of clarity may stem from the political nature of the reparations agenda and its changing character. Without a clear definition, people continue to raise objections to the movement. Critics often focus on specific measures, like money compensation, as though these alone define reparations. They may treat symbolic actions, such as apologies or memorials, as enough. This leads to debates that center on types of reparations instead of the broader idea of reparatory justice.

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

First, as stated in the AU Transitional Justice Policy (AUTJP), real reparations depend on accurate accounts of historical wrongs. This means recognizing not only the suffering endured but also the systems that allowed it to happen and the actions of everyone who took part or gained from it.

A reparative process concerning slavery, the transatlantic slave trade, and colonialism must acknowledge the full history. This includes the major role of European countries and colonial institutions, while also admitting that some African leaders and merchants were involved in capturing and selling fellow Africans.

Acknowledging this does not lessen the blame on those who engaged in the transatlantic slave trade or justify colonialism. It highlights that reparatory justice must be based on complete historical truth, not selective memory.

The truth about slavery, colonialism, apartheid, genocide, racial discrimination, and other systems of oppression goes beyond the past. It also recognizes their lasting political, economic, social, and cultural effects. Historical injustice is not just a chapter in history but an ongoing issue that must be addressed before any real repair can happen.

Second, there is a strong connection between reparations and an unconditional apology. This is why the Accra conference emphasized its importance. This also explains why the reparations agenda rejects the limited support from Western nations for the UN resolution. While they somewhat accepted the legal view of these historical wrongs, they did not fully agree with the resolution's implications or accept any duty to provide reparations.

An unconditional apology means admitting wrongdoing, accepting responsibility, and committing to repair. Without these, reparations may seem like forced transfers or political favors instead of genuine acts of restorative justice. By acknowledging wrongs, affirming the dignity of those harmed, and showing sincere regret, an unconditional apology can lead to reconciliation, allowing victims to choose to forgive.

An unconditional apology also shows that responsibility is individual, not dependent on others. African leaders admitting to their role in the slave trade cannot be a condition for former colonial powers to recognize their own blame. Likewise, the failure of the latter does not excuse the former.

The idea of an unconditional apology separates reparations from other forms of support, like development aid or humanitarian assistance. Without admitting past wrongs, accepting responsibility, and showing intent to repair damage, these actions are just cooperation, not reparatory justice.

Third, reparative actions need to be wide enough to match the scope and lasting effects of historical injustices. Since the impacts of slavery and colonialism are both structural and personal, reparations go beyond just money.

The actions are outlined in AU documents on reparations. They include restitution, rehabilitation, memorialization, returning cultural artifacts, reforming institutions, debt relief, technology transfer, development support, guarantees against repetition, changes in global governance, and more African representation in international bodies.

The Netherlands and Germany recently pledged to return cultural items to Ghana, while Denmark reaffirmed its apology and supported preserving former slave trading sites. These examples show some of these actions in practice. But reparative measures are not just separate demands; they are different forms of justice aimed at healing, restoring dignity, and addressing systemic inequalities.

Fourth, African views on justice see reparations as fundamentally about relationships. As shown in the AUTJP, reparations are both restorative and a bridge to reconciliation, benefiting victims and those who committed or profited from historical injustices.

Reparations are not only about helping Africans and their descendants. They allow former colonial powers to confront their historical wrongs and rebuild 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 today’s international political, economic, and legal systems. Their effects still affect wealth, development, representation, and global governance.

Therefore, reparations should aim to repair not just Africa and its people but also a world still marked by historical injustices. By recognizing these injustices as crimes against humanity at both AU and UN levels, the reparations agenda has gained a universal dimension.

This shows why other countries matter. While they do not bear historical blame or legal responsibility, they can help reparatory justice by supporting international norms, multilateral organizations, and reforms for a fairer global system. Their backing for the UN slavery resolution shows a growing agreement that addressing these historical wrongs is a shared global duty.

Reparations should include at least these five connected elements as a restorative and transformative process, where truth, responsibility, repair, reconciliation, and global solidarity come together to heal both Africa and the world.

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