For centuries, the wealth generated by the transatlantic slave trade and the systems of colonial exploitation that followed helped build institutions, fortunes and economies far beyond Africa. Millions of Africans were violently removed from their communities, sold into bondage and transported across the Atlantic. The consequences did not disappear when slavery was abolished. They continue to shape questions of wealth, development, racial inequality, cultural loss and political power.

Now Ghana is helping move the reparations debate from historical remembrance to an international political question:

Who will pay?

In 2025, the African Union designated the year around the theme “Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations,” with Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama taking a prominent role in advancing the issue.  

In 2026, Ghana went further. Accra hosted a high-level international conference following the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of Resolution A/RES/80/250 on March 25, 2026. Ghana’s government says the resolution was the first UN General Assembly resolution in its 80-year history dedicated specifically to slavery and the transatlantic slave trade.  

The question is no longer simply whether slavery was wrong.

The question is what justice requires now.

Ghana at the centre of the conversation

Ghana occupies a unique position in this debate.

Along the country’s Atlantic coastline stand former slave-trading forts and castles, including Cape Coast Castle and Elmina Castle. These sites have become powerful symbols of the connection between Africa, Europe, the Caribbean and the Americas.

For descendants of enslaved Africans visiting Ghana, the experience can be deeply personal: the dungeons, the “Door of No Return” and the Atlantic shoreline provide physical reminders of a historical rupture that transformed families and societies across continents.

But Ghana’s role is not simply symbolic.

The country has increasingly positioned itself as a diplomatic bridge between continental Africa and the African diaspora.

In June 2026, Accra brought together African and Caribbean governments, international organizations, scholars, lawyers and civil-society representatives to discuss how reparations could move from an international demand toward an actionable framework.  

A 19-point plan emerging from the Ghana meeting reportedly calls for measures including financial compensation, formal apologies, debt relief, restitution of cultural property, climate-related financing and pathways toward citizenship for members of the African diaspora.  

That is a much bigger conversation than writing a cheque.

So, who is supposed to pay?

This is where the debate becomes politically difficult.

Reparations advocates argue that responsibility should fall primarily on states, institutions and corporations that materially benefited from slavery and colonial exploitation.

That potentially includes European governments, financial institutions, trading companies, churches and other institutions whose historical wealth was connected to the slave economy.

But there is an obvious complication.

The people who participated directly in the slave trade are gone. The descendants of enslavers are not necessarily personally responsible for what their ancestors did. And the descendants of enslaved Africans cannot be reduced simply to victims of history.

The reparations argument therefore increasingly focuses on institutional responsibility rather than individual guilt.

The question becomes:

If an institution accumulated wealth through an unjust system, does the institution have a responsibility to help repair the consequences—even generations later?

That is a question that governments and institutions in Europe and the Americas will increasingly have to confront.

Reparations cannot mean only money

One of the strongest arguments emerging from the African reparations movement is that reparations should not be reduced to cash payments.

The African Union has emphasized that reparations must encompass broader concepts of dignity, justice, reform and cultural restoration.  

For Ghana, that could mean several things.

1. Financial reparations

A global reparations mechanism could direct resources toward African development, education, healthcare, infrastructure, technology and industrialization.

The purpose would not simply be to distribute money to individuals.

It could be about correcting structural economic disadvantages that were created or intensified by centuries of extraction.

2. Restitution of African cultural property

European museums contain enormous collections of African artifacts acquired during colonial conquest, military expeditions and other forms of unequal exchange.

Returning those objects would represent another form of reparatory justice.

The 2026 UN resolution highlighted restitution of cultural property, artifacts, manuscripts and national archives.  

For Ghana, this raises a particularly important question:

How much of Ghana’s cultural heritage is still outside Ghana?

3. Debt justice

Debt relief is increasingly appearing in reparations discussions.

If African countries are required to spend enormous portions of national revenue servicing international debt while wealthy countries debate compensation for historical exploitation, advocates argue that debt restructuring or cancellation could become part of a reparative framework.

The goal would be to create fiscal space for African development rather than simply transferring money from one government department to another.

4. Education and technology

A serious reparations programme could also involve scholarships, research partnerships, technology transfers and investment in African universities.

Imagine a reparations framework that helped establish world-class African institutions in medicine, engineering, artificial intelligence, agriculture, architecture and manufacturing.

That would turn historical recognition into future capacity.

5. Repatriation and belonging

Perhaps the most emotionally powerful form of reparations is the question of return.

Ghana has already positioned itself as a destination for people of African descent through initiatives such as the Right of Abode framework and the country’s highly visible diaspora engagement programmes. President Mahama has also described repatriation as a right of people of African descent and discussed a proposed homeland-return framework.  

For some members of the diaspora, reparations therefore means more than compensation.

It means having a legitimate pathway to come home.

But Ghana must also ask: what happens to the money?

This is perhaps the most uncomfortable question in the entire debate.

Suppose European governments, corporations or institutions eventually agree to contribute billions of dollars toward reparations.

Who receives it?

The Ghanaian government?

The African Union?

A global reparations fund?

Communities?

Traditional authorities?

Descendants of enslaved people?

African countries collectively?

A combination of all of them?

Without transparent institutions, reparations could become another source of political patronage and corruption.

Ghana therefore has an opportunity to propose something different: an independently governed African Reparations Fund with strong financial controls, public reporting, diaspora participation and measurable development objectives.

Every dollar—or cedi—would need to be traceable.

Reparations cannot become another mechanism through which ordinary Africans watch enormous amounts of money pass through government institutions without transforming their lives.

And what about African participation in the slave trade?

Critics of reparations frequently raise an important historical fact: some African rulers, merchants and intermediaries participated in the capture and sale of Africans.

That history cannot simply be erased.

But acknowledging African participation does not eliminate the responsibility of European and American systems that developed the transatlantic plantation economy and turned human beings into commodities on an industrial scale.

Nor does acknowledging African participation mean that modern Africans should be held collectively responsible for decisions made centuries ago.

The more productive approach is historical honesty.

Tell the entire story.

African collaboration should be studied.

European commercial and political responsibility should be studied.

The plantation economy should be studied.

The destruction of African communities should be studied.

And the economic consequences should be studied.

Reparations require historical truth—not historical simplification.

What would Ghana actually gain?

If managed properly, Ghana could potentially transform reparations from a symbolic campaign into an economic development strategy.

Imagine a reparations framework that supports:

• Ghanaian manufacturing
• African-owned financial institutions
• universities and research centres
• cultural preservation
• agricultural modernization
• renewable energy
• technology and artificial intelligence
• infrastructure
• healthcare
• creative industries
• diaspora investment
• heritage restoration
• industrial development

The objective would be simple:

Turn historical justice into generational wealth.

That distinction matters.

A reparations programme should not merely compensate Africa for the past.

It should help Africa build the future that historical exploitation made more difficult to achieve.

The £100 million question

There are already signs that institutions are beginning to move beyond apologies.

In July 2026, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, visited Cape Coast Castle and reaffirmed the Church of England’s controversial £100 million reparative fund connected to communities affected by enslavement.  

Whether such commitments are sufficient is another question.

For many reparations advocates, £100 million is tiny compared with the historical economic value extracted through slavery and colonialism.

The debate therefore isn’t simply:

“Will they apologize?”

It is:

“What is an apology worth if nothing materially changes?”

Ghana’s opportunity

Ghana has placed itself in a historically important position.

The country can help create the diplomatic architecture for a reparations movement connecting Africa with CARICOM, the United States, Europe and the wider African diaspora.

But Ghana must also be prepared to answer difficult questions at home.

How will traditional communities participate?

How will diaspora Africans participate?

How will reparations reach ordinary Ghanaians?

How will historical sites be preserved?

How will returned artifacts be managed?

How will funds be protected from corruption?

And perhaps most importantly:

What does Ghana believe it is owed?

The answers cannot be developed exclusively in presidential offices or international conferences. Historians, economists, lawyers, traditional leaders, young people, civil society and diaspora communities must all have a voice.

So, who will pay?

Ultimately, the reparations debate is not simply about extracting money from Europe or America.

It is about establishing a principle:

Historical exploitation has consequences, and justice requires more than remembering what happened.

Ghana’s leadership has helped push that question onto the international stage. The African Union has embraced reparations as a continental priority, while the UN’s 2026 resolution and the Accra process have given the movement a new diplomatic framework.  

But the hardest part is still ahead.

Someone will eventually have to decide who pays, who receives, how much is paid, what qualifies as reparations, and what happens to the money afterward.

And Ghana may find itself not merely asking those questions—but helping the world answer them.

Because reparations are no longer only a question about the past.

They are a question about who gets to build the future.