Reparatory Justice Can Most Effectively Be Completed via Decision and Cohesion – Mahama

At the 39th Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union (AU) in Addis Ababa, Former President of Ghana John Dramani Mahama delivered a powerful and strategic address. He contended that the centuries-long quest for reparatory justice for the descendants of enslaved Africans cannot succeed through passive commemoration alone. Instead, he asserted it must be transformed into a coordinated, long-term political campaign characterized by unwavering resolve and pan-African solidarity. His speech outlined a concrete diplomatic pathway, centered on the AU’s adoption of a “Decade of Reparations” and Ghana’s leadership in tabling a landmark resolution at the United Nations General Assembly. This framework seeks to legally codify the transatlantic slave trade and related systems as crimes against humanity, moving from symbolic acknowledgment to tangible, structured action on the global stage.

Key Points of the Address

Former President Mahama’s speech crystallized around several actionable pillars for the reparatory justice movement:

• Active Claim vs. Passive Receipt: Reparatory justice will not be voluntarily granted by former colonial powers; it must be assertively demanded through collective African action, mirroring the continent’s historical struggle for political independence.
• Strategic Shift to a “Decade of Reparations”: The AU’s endorsement of a ten-year framework marks a critical evolution from periodic, time-bound observances (like annual remembrance days) to a sustained, institutionalized political and advocacy campaign.
• UN Diplomatic Offensive: Ghana is spearheading an effort to introduce a resolution at the UN General Assembly on March 25th (the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery). The draft “Declaration of the Trafficking on Enslaved Africans and Racialized, Chartered Enslavement of Africans as a Crime Against Humanity” aims to establish a formal international legal characterization of these historical atrocities.
• Call for Unanimous Continental Endorsement: Mahama urged all AU member states to unite behind the UN resolution, emphasizing that Africa must speak with one voice to maximize diplomatic pressure and legitimacy.
• Existing Multinational Support: The initiative has already secured backing from several CARICOM (Caribbean Community) nations and other allied countries, demonstrating the potential for a Global South coalition.

Background: The Long Road to Reparatory Justice

To understand the urgency of Mahama’s proposal, one must situate it within the long and complex history of demands for reparations for the transatlantic slave trade, its aftermath, and colonial exploitation.

Early Calls and the Abolition Era

Discussions of redress for the harms of slavery are not new. Even during the abolitionist movements of the 18th and 19th centuries, some voices, including formerly enslaved people like Olaudah Equiano and Frederick Douglass, argued that freedom was insufficient without compensation for the immense labor and violence extracted. However, these early calls were largely framed within moral and religious appeals and were defeated by entrenched economic interests. The post-emancipation period often saw former slave owners compensated by governments (e.g., in the British Empire via the £20 million Slave Compensation Act of 1837), while the formerly enslaved received nothing beyond nominal legal freedom, often under exploitative apprenticeship systems.

The 20th Century: Decolonization and the Silence on Reparations

The mid-20th century wave of African independence, while a monumental achievement, largely occurred within a framework that prioritized political sovereignty over economic and historical redress. Cold War dynamics and the practical challenges of nation-building meant that the issue of reparations for slavery and colonialism was sidelined in international forums. The newly independent states, focused on establishing their place in a bipolar world, often accepted the post-colonial status quo, including structurally unequal economic relationships.

The Modern Reparations Movement: CARICOM and the Durban Conference

The contemporary, organized movement for reparatory justice gained significant momentum in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, led notably by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). In 2013, CARICOM heads of government adopted a Ten-Point Plan for Reparatory Justice, which called for formal apologies, repatriation programs, cultural institutions, and development assistance to address the lingering impacts of slavery and colonialism. This plan provided a detailed, diplomatic blueprint. The 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, further elevated the issue globally, resulting in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, which recognized slavery and the slave trade as crimes against humanity and asserted that they should have been illegal at the time they occurred. However, key Western nations, including the United States and several European powers, contested these provisions, limiting their practical impact.

The African Union’s Evolving Position

While the AU and its predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), have long addressed issues of historical injustice, their focus was traditionally on anti-colonial solidarity and fighting apartheid. In recent years, influenced by the CARICOM model and persistent advocacy from civil society, the AU has increasingly integrated reparatory justice into its agenda. The decision to consider a “Decade of Reparations” represents a formal institutionalization of this issue at the highest continental level.

Analysis: Decoding Mahama’s Strategic Framework

Mahama’s address is not merely a moral appeal; it is a calculated political strategy with multiple layers of intent and potential impact.

The “Decade of Reparations”: From Symbolism to Sustained Campaigning

The proposed decade (e.g., 2025-2035 or similar) is a crucial tactical innovation. Symbolic days and annual statements are easily ignored. A dedicated ten-year period mandates:

• Institutional Memory: It forces AU institutions (the Commission, various Directorates) to allocate resources, staff, and sustained focus to reparations, preventing the issue from fading between high-profile assemblies.
• Coordinated National Action Plans: It encourages individual member states to develop their own domestic strategies for education, advocacy, and diplomatic engagement aligned with the continental goal.
• Milestone-Driven Advocacy: A decade allows for setting intermediate goals, such as securing specific UN resolutions, achieving bilateral apologies from particular nations, or establishing a reparations fund, building momentum over time.
• Generational Engagement: It creates a framework to involve youth and new leaders, ensuring the campaign outlasts any single administration or political cycle.

This model consciously mirrors successful international campaigns like the “Decade of Education for Sustainable Development” or the “International Decade for People of African Descent,” which used a defined period to structure global efforts.

The UN Resolution: A Legal and Diplomatic Cornerstone

The draft resolution’s title is deliberately precise and potent. By seeking to declare the “trafficking on enslaved Africans and racialized, chartered enslavement” as a “Crime Against Humanity,” the initiative aims for a declaratory judgment from the UN’s highest political body. The legal and diplomatic significance is profound:

• Establishing a Peremptory Norm (Jus Cogens): While the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) defines crimes against humanity for contemporary prosecutions, a UNGA resolution can assert that these specific historical acts *retroactively* constitute such a crime under fundamental international law. This creates a powerful legal and moral foundation for all subsequent claims.
• Creating a Benchmark for Apology and Redress: Once the UNGA declares an act a crime against humanity, the obligation for states that perpetrated, facilitated, or benefited from it to provide reparations (as per international law’s principle of “reparation for internationally wrongful acts”) is considerably strengthened. It moves the debate from one of charity or goodwill to