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.’
However, like earlier AU reparations instruments, 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.
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 is constructed from five mutually reinforcing elements rooted in African conceptions of restorative and transitional justice:
- First, as enshrined in the AU Transitional Justice Policy (AUTJP), meaningful reparations depend on accurate and authoritative accounts of historical injustice.
- Second, there is an inextricable link between reparations and unconditional apology, which explains why the Accra conference identifies this as vital.
- Third, reparative measures must be broad enough to match the scale and enduring consequences of historical injustice.
- 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.
- Fifth, reparations are a global justice project.
