Sat | Jul 25, 2026

Letter of the Day | Reparation is legal obligation to right a wrong

Published:Friday | June 23, 2023 | 7:37 AM
A man photographs a maquette of a statue, at City Hall, London, in this 2008 photo, which now stands as a permanent slavery memorial.
AP/ File
A man photographs a maquette of a statue, at City Hall, London, in this 2008 photo, which now stands as a permanent slavery memorial.

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Please allow me to offer some comments on the letter of M. Thomas, titled, ‘Are reparation claims reality or fantasy’, published in The Gleaner on June 16. M. Thomas addressed several aspects of my introduction to the Report on Reparations for Transatlantic Chattel Slavery in the Americas and the Caribbean (report or Brattle Report), which is on the website of The University of the West Indies at this link – https://uwitv.global/news/reparations-symposium-brattle-paper/.

First, as acknowledged in my introduction to the report, the reparations figures are high. However, they reflect the enormity of the grotesque and wrongful practice of transatlantic chattel slavery (TCS) that lasted over 400 years and affected some 19 million Africans. The fact that reparations have never been paid by former slave-holding countries contribute to the very high figures.

Second, as explained in the introduction, it remains within the sovereign will of a victim state to accept as compensation a sum lower than that to which it is entitled. Thus, although the UK is required to pay Antigua and Barbuda US$1.280 trillion (See Table 16 on Page 44 of the Brattle Report), it is open to that Caribbean state to accept a lower figure. Ultimately, then, it is the victim state that will determine the reality of the sums it receives as reparations.

Third, in respect of the recommended schedules for payment at 10, 15, 20, and 25-year periods, it is advisable that there be a binding agreement, so that in the event of a default, the victim state has a remedy in law.

Fourth, there is a misunderstanding on the part of M. Thomas. In my introduction to the report, I did not state that “claims should be included in an agreement establishing a development fund”. What I did say was that the “reparatory sums should be used for developmental purposes”, e.g., education and health (See Page 13 of my introduction to the report).

Fifth, M. Thomas raises the question whether aid given by a former slave-holding state should be taken into account in determining the reparations due from that state. In principle, I would not favour this approach because reparations have a wholly different basis from aid. The basis for reparations is a legal obligation to right a wrong. Aid does not have such a basis.

M Thomas bemoans the absence of any mention of reparations in the Communique of the last CARICOM Meeting of Foreign Ministers. I share that concern. Reparations for TCS is a matter that involves not one, but at least two States. The pursuit of reparations will necessarily impact on the relationship between a victim State and a former Slave holding State—a relationship that must have implications for the Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the Caribbean.

JUDGE PATRICK ROBINSON