Apology and Reparation for Slave Trade: Beyond the Politics of Britain’s Kemi Badenoch

Bola A. Akinterinwa International relations, classical or contemporary, has always been fraught with injustice and unfairness in its conduct and management. The story of the slave trade is a case in point. More than twelve million African people, including men, women, and children, were captured and trafficked to the Americas forcefully as slaves in between the 15th and 19th Centuries. The abduction and trafficking was cruel as an act. When compensations were to be paid at the end of the slave trading, the act was an open manifestation of unfairness and injustice. Slave owners were compensated but the slaves were never considered as qualified to be compensated. This is why the quest for apology and reparation cannot be well appreciated if the nature of slave trading is not first explicated. In the words of the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, the wealth of several Western nations of today was largely ‘built on stolen lives and stolen labour…barbaric punishments that maintained control – from shackles and iron collars to flogging and sexual violence.’ The situation ‘was not simply forced labour.’ And perhaps most disturbingly, ‘it was a machinery of mass exploitation and deliberate dehumanization of men, women and children. The wounds run deep and often go unrecognized.’ If this was the situation, why have there not been agitations for apology and reparations before now? How do we explain the fact that international eyes have been closed to the atrocities? Without whiff of doubt, there are two schools of thought that explain the issue. One school has it that Africa should now be more forward-looking rather than wasting much time on the problems of the past. The other school posits that there cannot be any future without the past and the present defining it. This argument is strengthened by the consideration that Africa and black people are generally portrayed as backward, whereas, it is mainly the factor of slave trading and colonization that also largely explains the backwardness. Politics of Reparation for Slave Trade Chief Obafemi Awolowo, in his press statement of 28th June, 1961 issued on behalf of the Action Group, already expatiated on the backwardness of the black man that “African Unity is a Necessity,” and that ’from the beginning of recorded history, the black man has been the conspicuous butt of all manner of inhuman treatment. In the palaces of the Arabian potentates – both in the Middle East and in North Africa – he was degraded and enslaved. When the so-called “dark Continent of Africa” was discovered, the European marauders hunted him down like a common beast, captured him, and sold him into slavery in the Americas and West indies.’ The enslavement has continued to change in form and Chief Awolowo did not fail to remind us again that ‘the era of trading in, and of enforcing the services of black slaves, was terminated only to be replaced by the European Powers which initiated it with a legalized form of political and economic enslavement of the entire black peoples of the continent of Africa… Today, for most parts of black Africa, the inhumane, humiliating and degrading position delineated above remains more or less the same.’ It was against this background that the struggle against the indignity arising from the enslavement became a desideratum to be addressed. It was a Nigerian by ius sanguinis, Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, a President of Nigeria that Nigerians never had, that kick-started the reparation struggle. He single-handedly spearheaded and institutionalized the global and Pan African movement for reparations for the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism in the early 1990s. He explained the need for reparation as restoration of Africa from historical damage caused by slavery and colonization. In between 1987 and 1990, he built special linkages and ties with the African Diaspora in the United States, an effort that was much appreciated and that prompted giving the Congressional Black Caucus Chairman’s Award to him. And perhaps more interestingly, Chief Abiola, not only financed, but also hosted the foundational Lagos Reparations Conference, generally referred to as the World Conference on Reparations to Africa and Africans in the Diaspora, held on December 13-14, 1990 at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Lagos. The outcome of the Conference served as a catalyst in the adoption of an OAU resolution in 1991 that recognised Africa’s right to redress. In fact, Chief Abiola chaired the OAU Group of Eminent Persons on Reparations and helped to organize the 1993 Abuja Pan-African Conference that formed the International Committee for Reparation. This is the genesis of the current politics of reparation. Even if Nigeria has always been the leader of leaders in the quest to defend African interests and integrity, other initiatives had also been taken especially in light of the demise of Chief M.K.O. Abiola and non-follow up to his struggle for reparation. The increasing threats of modern neocolonialism have prompted agitations to put an end to any form of recolonization. True, neocolonialism is making a nonsense of the sovereignty of many African states. At the 19-20 December 2025 Russia-Africa Partnership Forum held in Cairo, Egypt, decisions were taken to stop the ongoing exploitation of Africa and unlock its resources for integration and development. One of the decisions was the need to struggle for reparation for the enslavement of African and black people in the Americas. In fact, African leaders declared 2025 the ‘Year of Reparations.’ It is therefore not a surprise that the issue would be taken more seriously at the level of the UNGA. On March 25, 2026, which coincided with the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, a UN resolution adopted at the 80th session of the UNGA, recognized the transatlantic slavery as the ‘gravest crime against humanity.’ The resolution requested the UN Member States to contribute to a reparations fund. At the UNGA vote on it, 123 countries voted in favour, 52 countries abstained from voting (essentially European Union Member States and the United Kingdom), while 3 countries (United States, Israel, and Argentina) voted against the declaration of the transatlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity. In June 2026, Yvette Tan of the BBC had it that ‘African and Caribbean nations called for formal apology for transatlantic slavery… A 19-point reparations plan has been endorsed as part of the “Next Steps” conference in the Ghanaian capital, Accra’ (www.bbc.com). The reparation request includes a comprehensive debt relief, the restitution of looted cultural property, and the establishment of a global reparations fund. More important, the conference leaders wanted all the countries involved in the slave trade to offer their ‘full, formal and unconditional apologies.’ One rationale for this position is the belief of the Ghanaian president, John Dramani Mahama that ‘history does not ask us to inherit guilt, but it asks us to inherit responsibility’ (ibid.). It is this question of responsibility that is being politicized internationally. From the perspective of the Americans, the United States does not ‘recognise a legal right to reparations for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred.’ Explained differently, there are three main issues raised in the position of the United States. First, slave trading as at the time it occurred was legal; Secondly, the United States admits that slave trade was a historical wrong but it cannot be an issue for reparation, and thirdly, in the event it is seen as a right, the United States does not recognize such a right. More concernedly, the United States argued that the UN resolution is not specific on ‘whom the recipients of reparatory justice would be.’ China is in support of the UN resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade as the ‘gravest crime against humanity’ and that the slave trade left centuries-long structural and developmental wounds on the African continent. As told by Chinese Plenipotentiary to Nigeria, Yu Dunhai, the resolution is a historic milestone and a victory for justice: ‘justice may be delayed, but it will never be absent… With profound historical significance it represents a powerful affirmation of historical justice, a firm defence of the common dignity of humanity, and a major victory for the international community in opposing the remnants of colonialism, resisting racial discrimination, and upholding fairness and justice. Russia supports the UNGA resolution and promised in January 2026 to assist Africa to scientifically and mathematically calculate and quantify claims for Western colonial and slave trade reparations. In the words of the Director of the Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Irina Abramova, ‘we want to combine the efforts of Russian scientists – mathematicians, programmers, historians and economists – with African scientists in order to jointly substantiate the volume of these reparations and then proceed with legal claims on various international platforms.’ Director Abramova advised Africa to seek exact mathematical reparation to be paid by the Western colonialist and slave traders and the potential recipients of the reparation funds. Latin America, with the exception of Argentina, supports the UNGA resolution. Agitation for reparation in Brazil, which was the last country to abolish slavery in 1888 and which accounted for about 5 million out of the 12.5 million forcibly-trafficked slaves to the Americas, is tied to land reform. All the EU Member States abstained from the UNGA resolution in the belief that claims for historical compensation are inconsistent with international law in the sense that slavery was legal under the laws of the time. Unlike the transatlantic system, there are no official state-level reparations programmes or formal financial compensations from Arab or Middle Eastern governments to sub-Sahara Africa. This is an overview of great power politics of slave trade reparation. Beyond Kemi Badenoch’s Non-apology Kemi Badenoch is against the idea of apologizing for four main reason. First, it would be a ‘navel-gazing distraction’ in her own words. A navel-gazing distraction is the ‘practice or habit of spending too much time absorbed in deep, self-indulgent, or unproductive contemplation of (one’s) own thoughts, feelings, problems, or ego.’ In other words, Badenoch is actually saying that, rather than the British people expending an excessive, self-indulgent and unproductive amount of time on their own problems, feelings and thoughts, the British should pay useful attention to the outside world. As good as this thinking may be, it is still meaningless because, if the British refuse to first internalize the implications of not paying reparation, engaging with the external world may be more costly and problematic. Badenoch wants the British to be less excessive in self-contemplation. The principle of reparation in international law stipulates that a state responsible for an internationally-wrongful act or a violation of human rights has a legal obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused. The opponents of non-reparation argue that slave trading was lawful as at the time it took place. The proponents of slave trading reparation are not talking about slave trade as a business, but as an act of brutalities, indecency, that condones wickedness and inhumanity. The modern-day British and Americans wrongly argue that they should not be held for the crimes of slave trading committed by their fore parents. What their fore parents did then was precisely still impacting on the conduct and management of international politics today. In fact, the defence and sustainability of the basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law largely depends on the extent of fairness and justice in the management of global affairs. Secondly, Kemi Badenoch has queried the usefulness of future leaders attending the Commonwealth summit in light of the increasing calls for reparation. Good query, but the unending demands for reparation are compelling reasons to see the beauty in navel-gazing distraction. The truth still in the making is that, sooner than later, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) has the potential to witness a decline in its influence, if any attempt is made to return the Commonwealth of Nations to its former status of British Commonwealth. Doing so could precipitate the disintegration of the organization. Thirdly, there is the permissible reparation offered by the British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, who said there would not be reparations in the form of financial compensation and that, in lieu, he is prepared to engage in helping poorer countries to restructure their debts on more favourable terms. This seems to be another way of saying NO to the payment of reparation. A debt is necessarily an obligation and a relationship between a debtor and a creditor. Regardless of the type or nature of a debt – secured debt which is backed by collateral; unsecured debts; installment debt, which is a fixed lump sum repaid in regular scheduled payment over a set time; and revolving debt – the truth is that none of the common payoff strategies puts an end to the indebtedness. Debts must still be paid. Put differently, common payoff strategies are of three types. First is debt avalanche, which involves paying the debt with the highest interest rate first in order to save money on total interests. The second is debt snowball approach, which is about paying off the smallest balance first to build psychological momentum. The third is the consolidation approach, which is combining multiple high-interest debts into a single, lower-interest. All these payoff strategies still require payment of debts. Since reparation is, stricto sensu, not a loan but a relationship in which a misunderstanding is resolved, Prime Minister Burnham’s offer of facilitating restructuring of Africa’s debts cannot be good enough for negotiation. What is advisable and be good enough is outright cancellation of all debts, London, and Paris, Club inclusive. Interests already paid are more than the capital loans taken. Even if we talk about the grant of development aid, the giver of the aid has generally been the first beneficiary of the implementation of its own aid policy. Fourthly, and perhaps more interestingly, Kemi Badenoch appeared to be much inspired by an earlier statement made 20 years ago by Tony Blair, who said ‘the Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backward.’ True, this is a good point of observation. However, when talking about the ‘past endlessly’ or ‘endlessly backward,’ and no one is listening, is the solution the need to stop looking backward? It cannot. One ideal solution is to continue to sustain looking backward until those affected will not only listen but will also make their future generations learn lessons of humanity from the saga. Besides, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to seek to obliterate the indignities of the past by sustaining them in different forms today and at the same time preaching the sermons of forgetting the past. There is no today without yesterday, nor will there be any tomorrow without today and without today being reckoned with as part of the continuum of history. While we agree with Kemi Badenoch on the ‘need to start looking at how we can bring the Commonwealth together, start looking forward, not backward,’ our agreement does not include rejection of discussions on payment of reparations. It is a critical issue in maintaining a balance within the Commonwealth organization. Andy Burnham is against financial reparation. Fine it is. Reparation may not be financial. Africa is not crazy about financial reparation. In Brazil, for example, no one is talking about financial reparation. Reparation in Brazil centres on land reform and its challenges. In the context of Africa, let justice and fairness in the management of global questions be the case in the slave trade reparation struggle. The Honourable Conservative party leader should simply note that the struggle for slave trade reparation is unconsciously and gradually becoming more of a people’s movement. Apology has become a desideratum in order to maintain global peace and security. Global governance must be driven by rule of law and not by policies of unilateralism which have been condoned for too long. The emergence of the BRICS ought to have sent good lessons to the sponsors of realist school of thought that power can no longer alone solve the problems of humanity. Therefore, Badenoch should begin to exercise more caution concerning Andy Burnham’s navel-gazing distraction. Badenoch should not be in a hurry to forget that the management of the United States under President Donald Trump, or the implementation of the policy of ‘Make America Great Again’ has seriously damaged whatever influence the United States may want to claim to have in Africa. The United Kingdom and the United States have generally acted pari passu in the abuse of the international rule of law. Under the watch of the British, naked aggression has become an acceptable tradition. Imagine how the United States’ unilateral abduction of Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, a sovereign state, with his wife, at dead midnight. Imagine the United States also threatening another sovereign state, Iran, that it would wipe it out of global map. Arrogance of power must be better managed. Who really is interested in this type of kangaroo governance under the pretext of national security? Is it not because there are followers that there are leaders and that leadership has meaning? The various western institutions that have been dominating international businesses have the potential to be seriously undermined if the way the developed world is going about the exercise of its strength is not redefined. Africa should be specially respected because of its poverty. Africa’s poverty is the main instrument for the wealth of Europe. If Europe wants to have peace and rest of mind, efforts should be honestly made to address the injustice that has come to characterize the management of international relations. The issue of slave trade reparation and cancellation of Africa’s debts should be addressed more seriously. In this regard, Kemi Badenoch belief that Britain should not apologise for the UN-identified ‘gravest crime against humanity’ is uncalled for, most unfortunate, unreasonable and myopic. Historical records have shown that slaves were flogged to death. They were not treated as human beings but as material property. Several maltreated slaves died during transportation from Africa to the Americas and were simply dumped into the high seas for fishes to eat. The statement of Chief Obafemi Awolowo on the brutalities of the slave trade is quite touching. Imagine, the British and Americans argue that these brutalities were lawful during the period of the slave trading. If they were lawful, it meant that there was nothing like humanity the way it exists today. Were the slave masters of that time better than wild animals, if the law they made enabled the payment of reparation to slave masters for losing their properties, who were human beings but who were treated as a chiffon de papier to be thrown into the dustbin of history? Additionally, the Kemi Badenochs of this world are unable to understand that the purpose of the reparation struggle is to restore black dignity. Predictably, the world of the foreseeable future is that of the Black people. Technological expertise will not be the exclusive preserve of the developed world. Veto power will be in désuétude. Sovereign equality will have a more constructive meaning. All the black people claiming to be white will soon learn that acquisition of nationality by ius soli, naturalisation, marriage, conferment, etc., does not really make them a fully blooded American, a French or British, Russian, or Canadian, etc. At best, they will be second class citizens even if the law provides for the contrary. Consequently, let a black man learn how to be black. Not learning so will make them suffer unending indignities. Let Badenoch’s politics anticipate these challenges.