In recent years, the global conversation on reparations has steadily regained prominence, driven by renewed calls for historical accountability and restorative justice. Reparations, at its core, refer to a range of legal, political, and economic measures aimed at redressing grave historical injustices. These measures may take various forms, including financial compensation, debt relief, institutional reform, formal apologies, and symbolic acts of recognition.
In the context of the transatlantic slave trade, the reparations debate raises critical questions of international law, state responsibility, historical continuity, and moral obligation, particularly in light of the enduring socio-economic consequences of slavery on African states and the diaspora.
While addressing participants at the Diaspora Summit themed “Resetting Ghana: The Diaspora as the 17th Region,” Ghana’s President, John Dramani Mahama, announced Ghana’s intention to elevate the reparations discourse to the global stage. He reaffirmed his commitment to move a motion at the United Nations General Assembly seeking formal recognition of the transatlantic slave trade as the greatest crime against humanity.
True to that commitment, the President has now tabled the motion before the United Nations General Assembly on March, 25 2026. The proposed declaration, if successful, could carry profound legal and political implications. While largely symbolic in form, such recognition may contribute to shaping narratives within customary international law, strengthening the moral and diplomatic basis for reparations claims, and intensifying pressure on states historically linked to the transatlantic slave trade.
Yet, the path to reparations remains fraught with doctrinal and practical challenges. Questions persist as to whether contemporary international law frameworks can sustain claims rooted in centuries-old injustices, how issues of attribution and temporal jurisdiction might be resolved, and whether consensus can be achieved within a politically diverse United Nations system.
At the same time, proponents argue that the evolving nature of international law, particularly in areas such as human rights and transitional justice, creates space for innovative approaches to redress.
Against this backdrop, The High Street Journal engaged Professor Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, a distinguished scholar of international law, to examine the legal viability of Ghana’s proposed motion, the prospects for international consensus, and the broader implications for the global reparations movement.
Rethinking Reparations: Between Legal Possibility and Political Reality
On the question of legal and diplomatic viability, Professor Appiagyei-Atua rejects the notion that reparations for the transatlantic slave trade rest solely on moral considerations. In his view, there is a credible legal foundation for such claims.
He explains that the slave trade was inconsistent with foundational legal principles even at the time it was practised. Classical natural law theory did not endorse slavery, whether at the level of individuals or states. Further, peremptory norms of international law, commonly described as jus cogens, were sufficiently developed to delegitimise the institution.
Crucially, he argues that African political entities of the time, including kingdoms and empires, functioned as recognised legal actors within the international system. These entities persistently objected to slavery and cannot be said to have accepted any customary international rules that sought to legitimise it.
He also situates Ghana’s current effort within a longer history of diplomatic engagement. The Organisation of African Unity, at a meeting in Abuja in 1992, established a Group of Eminent Persons to pursue reparations. This initiative was followed by the 1993 Pan-African Conference in Abuja, which produced the Abuja Proclamation, a key document articulating Africa’s position on reparative justice.
More recently, in 2022, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted a resolution during its 73rd Ordinary Session in Banjul, calling on member states to take concrete steps toward advancing Africa’s reparations agenda, including truth-seeking and a clearer articulation of the harms suffered.
Prospects of Achieving Consensus at the UN Level
On the prospects of achieving consensus, Professor Appiagyei-Atua offers a cautious assessment. He considers the likelihood of full agreement within the United Nations General Assembly to be limited, noting that Western states are likely to maintain their longstanding resistance, often opting for carefully framed expressions of regret rather than substantive commitments.
Even so, he acknowledges that a General Assembly vote may still secure majority support. He draws a comparison with the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban, where states formally recognised slavery and the slave trade as grave injustices and affirmed the right of victims to seek reparations. However, despite this recognition, no concrete or enforceable outcomes followed. For him, this underscores the persistent gap between symbolic declarations and practical implementation.
The Broader Implications for Reparations Discourse
Turning to the broader implications for reparations discourse, Professor Appiagyei-Atua adopts a more critical stance. He expresses scepticism about the likelihood of immediate breakthroughs from Ghana’s initiative, particularly if the conversation remains narrowly focused on compensation.
In his view, reparative justice must be redefined. It should extend beyond attempts to repair past harm and instead prioritise the empowerment of affected communities. This includes fostering healing, strengthening institutions, and enabling African states and peoples to engage on the global stage from a position of agency.
He further notes that internal challenges such as corruption, governance deficits, and systemic mismanagement continue to weaken Africa’s bargaining position. As long as these issues persist, he argues, the continent may struggle to assert the moral authority necessary to lead a successful reparations agenda.
As part of a way forward, he calls for a revival and integration of traditional African governance systems, alongside a reorientation of knowledge production, both informal and within formal education systems. In his view, this would lay the foundation for genuine empowerment, enabling Africans on the continent and in the diaspora to participate meaningfully in negotiating and ultimately realising justice.
With the motion set to be moved today, March 25, 2026, all eyes will be on the United Nations to see how events unfold, whether this initiative will generate meaningful outcomes and lasting impact, or whether the status quo will persist, largely unchanged.
