As the EU stalls on reparations and seeks a say in its own trial, the Accra summit demands that Africa stop begging and start forcing a global reckoning
There are moments in history when the earth trembles under the weight of a truth buried for too long. Accra, from June 17 to 19, 2026, may have been one of those moments. On the coast that served for centuries as the embarkation point for millions of our ancestors into the hell of the slave trade, heads of state, jurists, activists, and representatives of the African diaspora gathered for the Next Steps Conference on Reparatory Justice to build on UN Resolution A/RES/80/250, which was adopted on March 25, 2026. As the first document in the UN’s 80-year history dedicated to slavery and the transatlantic slave trade, they wanted to ensure it leads to real action rather than remaining a dead letter.
Let us begin with what deserves to be acknowledged. Ghana, the symbolic gateway of the slave trade, is here staking its credibility as a pan-African leader. President Mahama did not convene this summit for appearances. His formula, which became the rallying cry of Accra, rings as a warning: Reparative justice “will not be handed to us. Like political independence, it must be asserted, pursued and won through determination and unity.” These words carry the direct lineage of Kwame Nkrumah.
The conference concluded with the adoption of the 19-point Accra Commitment for Reparatory Justice, which provides for measures of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, institutional reform, and guarantees of non-repetition. Three international committees were established: Global Advisory Group and Legal Group on Reparatory Justice, and the Expert Group on the Restitution of Cultural Property.
For the first time, monitoring mechanisms exist on paper. It is a step forward. But a step is not yet a victory.
Allow me to say what others prefer to leave unsaid in the muffled diplomacy of grand conferences. The UN March vote revealed true faces. The text received 123 votes in favor, three against – the United States, Israel, and Argentina – and 52 abstentions, including all countries of the European Union. Fifty-two European abstentions. France, which wraps itself in the discourse of human rights at every international forum, abstained. Great Britain, whose slave traders made their fortunes on the blood of our ancestors, abstained. Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal: all absent from the vote for justice.
Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron, who was not in Accra, declared in his speech of May 21: “We must be honest enough to tell ourselves that we can never repair these crimes. We must accept the fact that there is no final point.” Translation: We acknowledge the crime, but we refuse to pay for it. This is the classic rhetoric of the torturer who asks the victim to “turn the page” while keeping the fruits of plunder in his coffers.
The UN resolution, however, is non-binding. This means the Western world is free to honor its commitments or ignore them, depending on the interests of the moment. History has already shown us what the promises of former colonial powers are worth: decades after formal independence, Francafrique thrives, the CFA franc still chains entire economies, and our resources continue to cross the Atlantic to enrich those who once impoverished us by the force of chains.
Then, the international committees will include not only African and Caribbean countries, but also Western nations that historically benefited from slavery, such as the United States, France, and Great Britain. Allowing the executioners to sit at the table of justice means offering them a say in the terms of their own conviction. What court in the world accepts that the accused co-presides over his own trial?
If we allow the former slaveholding powers to define the contours, the timeline, and the modalities of reparations, we will have traded our right to justice for a seat in an advisory commission.
A third uncomfortable truth: Will the African states, some of whose kingdoms and trading posts were involved in the slave trade, be capable of maintaining a united position? Internal rivalries, divergent economic interests, and persistent dependence on former colonial powers all complicate any common strategy. Africa cannot demand solidarity from its diaspora while maintaining internal divisions that weaken its negotiating capacity. Unity is not a diplomatic luxury – it is the sine qua non of any real justice. Sankara knew it. Nkrumah knew it. Nyerere knew it. And it is precisely because they attempted to build this unity that the colonial powers financed their overthrow.
Accra must not be the end of a process. Participants agreed on ambitious objectives: restitution of looted cultural property, financial justice, debt relief, technology transfer, climate justice, reform of global governance, and the fight against discrimination inherited from slavery and colonialism. These demands are just and legitimate. But they will only materialize if Africa transforms moral pressure into effective political and economic pressure. Reparations will not come from the goodwill of those who profited from the crime. They will come from our capacity to make the status quo unsustainable for them.
The reparations envisioned go beyond the financial framework: restitution of cultural property, recognition of psychological trauma, rehabilitation of the dignity of victims, and institutional reform. We are not wrong to broaden the scope. But let us not scatter our forces in every direction at once. First monetary sovereignty, because without control of our currency, any financial reparation can be neutralized by economic mechanisms we do not control; then unconditional cultural restitution, because our sacred objects are not museum curiosities, they are fragments of our soul; and, finally, the reform of international institutions, because the IMF and the UN Security Council, in their current architecture, are instruments for perpetuating the colonial imbalance.
The political union between Africa and its descendants on the other side of the Atlantic marks a turning point, hailed by the organizers as the end of a historical fragmentation.
This may be the most precious result of Accra. For 400 years, the slave trade sought to separate Africa from its diaspora, to cut the continent off from its children scattered to the four winds of the world. Today, that fracture is beginning to close. The diaspora is now a political actor in the reparations struggle. The Black African Defense League salutes Accra as a necessary step, but we refuse to celebrate it as a victory. The Accra conference will be judged not on its speeches, but on its capacity to produce an impartial, quantified, and binding monitoring mechanism.
