No amount of money can pay for slavery and colonialism, and offering it, Kwesi Pratt Jnr. argues, is itself an insult. That was the premise the Ghanaian journalist and Pan-Africanist — widely known as “Comrade Kwesi Pratt” — brought to the University of Cape Coast’s Faculty of Law this month in a public lecture on reparations for the transatlantic slave trade.

Convened by Dr. Ernest Ako, head of the law department, the session was billed for students of International Law and International Human Rights Law but drew faculty and other students as well. Pratt, managing editor of The Insight and a longtime figure in Ghanaian political activism, used the lecture and his recent book, Reparations: History, Struggle, Politics and Law, to press two arguments: that reparations should aim at a structural reset of global power rather than a payout, and that the familiar narrative blaming African rulers for the slave trade distorts the historical record.

His visit came weeks after the UN General Assembly, on March 25, 2026, declared the transatlantic slave trade the gravest crime against humanity. In the interview that follows, JURIST’s Cecile Akoeley Attiogbe Atayi spoke with Pratt about how that resolution might be turned from symbol into legal leverage.

JURIST: To begin, let’s ground this discussion in the intellectual roots of reparations. In your book, you trace the historical and political origins of the movement. How do you see the intellectual foundations evolving from Pan-Africanist thought to contemporary international law?

Kwesi Pratt Jnr.: I must confess that my approach to reparations is that of a Pan-African activist even as I appreciate the legal foundations of the vicious exploitation of the African people from the transatlantic slave trade through classical colonialism. Undoubtedly the Papal Bull issued by the Pope to the King of Portugal in 1452 provided the legal and religious basis for the trade. It is also important to recall that before the abolition of the Slave Trade in the West, there were no laws against it. The Nuremberg trials and the payment of compensation to victims of genocide in Namibia and elsewhere should provide some legal framework or basis for reparations. From my point of view, reparation ought to be about the building of a new and just world whose resources ought to be distributed equitably for the satisfaction of the needs and wants of all people regardless of their geographical location, color, language, or some other forms of identification. The law in its essence ought to be based on principles of justice.

JURIST: Building on that historical and philosophical grounding, let’s turn to the present moment and the UN resolution. The General Assembly declared the transatlantic Slave Trade the gravest crime against humanity. What is the legal and political significance of this resolution, and how does it advance the reparations debate?

Pratt: The UN General Assembly resolution of March 25, 2026, is a significant first step. It provides a diplomatic and moral frame to craft an agenda to reset the world. From this point on, activists on the continent and in the diaspora can use this frame to mobilize mass support for the movement for reparative justice. What is required is mobilization on the same scale as the struggle by the worldwide national liberation movement.

JURIST: While the resolution is momentous, some argue it risks being symbolic. How do you respond to concerns that it may lack enforceability, and what mechanisms could make it more impactful?

Pratt: You are right, the General Assembly resolution by itself cannot bring about justice for the victims of the transatlantic slave trade. It cannot reset the world, and it will not automatically lead to the restructuring of the United Nations and its agencies like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). What has to be done is for those who seek justice to put maximum pressure on the levers of power around the globe to give effect to the resolution. We may want to seek advisory opinions from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Court of Justice. Lawyers’ Unions and Associations in Africa and the Caribbean may also be persuaded to start research on how to pursue the legal options. In this connection, it will be imperative to look at decisions of the Nuremberg trials and cases which have already been decided like the genocide of the Herero and Nama people in Namibia. In my view, the “Doctrine of Discovery” and the Euro-Christian framework that proclaimed non-Christian lands as terra nullius and the Papal Bull issued by the Pope need to be critically re-examined, especially as they were institutionalized in European colonial law and shaped property and sovereignty laws in the United States of America (USA). The faculties of law in our universities also should apply themselves to setting the legal framework for this struggle.

JURIST: Looking beyond symbolism, there are precedents in other contexts. Reparations have been pursued for Holocaust survivors and in post-apartheid South Africa. What lessons or precedents do you think are most relevant for the African diaspora’s claims?

Pratt: Precedents are important. They help to define, expand or shrink scope but what we are dealing with is the search for justice. In this search, the most important considerations are that an injustice was meted out to a whole race, our resources were stolen, our labor was stolen, our dignity was affronted and our very essence was devalued. We don’t need precedents to struggle for justice which is the inalienable right of all persons.

JURIST: Of course, debates also arise around complicity within Africa itself. A recurring critique is the role of some African rulers in the slave trade. How should this be addressed within the reparations discourse without undermining the legitimacy of claims?

Pratt: There is no denying that a few Africans acted as agents of the enslavers. They served the enslavers in many ways including carrying their luggage across the forest or even as soldiers or gunmen in the invading force. Those Africans were themselves victims of the slave traders. For me, it is interesting that the proceeds of the criminal trade cannot be found in Africa today. They are in the financial, religious, academic and cultural institutions of the West. The statistics of the slave trade are also revealing. Some calculations put the number of Africans captured into slavery at 12.6 million people and for every one of them three people died in the wars of resistance. Even more interesting is the fact that amongst the stolen artifacts found in European museums are the skeletal remains of African heroes and sheroes who resisted the slave trade.

JURIST: Political will is crucial. Ghana and the African Union have been vocal in championing reparations. How do you assess the current political momentum across Africa, and what role should states play in advancing claims internationally?

Pratt: For sure, political will is crucial in the fight for reparations. We have that in abundance. Just think of it — all 55 African countries plus all the member states of CARICOM backed this historic resolution in the General Assembly of the United Nations. The masses of Africa are organizing themselves for an arduous struggle and no force can stop us from achieving justice.

JURIST: And when we speak of reparations, it’s not only financial. Beyond monetary compensation, what forms of reparations do you believe are essential for meaningful justice?

Pratt: I have always said that no amount of money can pay for the crimes which were committed against the African people through the slave trade, classical colonialism and neo-colonialism. It is indeed an insult to offer monetary compensation. What we need to do is to reset the world to restore the dignity of African spirituality and our cultural values. We need to rebuild our institutions, to redevelop educational curriculum to reflect our needs and aspirations. We need to tell our own history from our own perspective. It may or must involve the cancellation of odious debts, the return of stolen artifacts, and payments for stolen labor.

JURIST: Yet, global power dynamics remain a barrier. Major powers historically involved in slavery have resisted reparations. How do you envision overcoming these geopolitical obstacles, and what strategies might compel broader international accountability?

Pratt: There can be no alternative to mobilization and struggle in the bold confrontation with injustice.

JURIST: Finally, looking ahead, let’s consider the future of the movement. What do you see as the most urgent priorities for reparations, and how can civil society, scholars, and governments collaborate to sustain momentum?

Pratt: All the answers I have given so far point to our urgent priorities. We demand justice and we demand equality.