'We cannot confuse participation with responsibility' by Callistus Mahama, Ph.D

On March 25, 2026, the world took a long-overdue step toward moral clarity. By an overwhelming vote, the United Nations General Assembly declared slavery and the transatlantic slave trade among the gravest crimes against humanity. Ghana’s role in leading this effort was not accidental - it was deliberate, principled, and necessary.

Since then, an important debate has emerged. Some have argued that because Africans participated in the slave trade, Africa cannot present itself as a victim or legitimately demand reparations. Others insist that this line of reasoning misunderstands both history and justice.

This conversation must continue - but it must also be grounded in logic, not distortion. Yes, Africans Were Involved. That Is Not the Dispute

Let us begin honestly. African kingdoms, merchants, and intermediaries played roles in the capture and sale of enslaved people. That is a historical fact. It is documented. It cannot and should not be denied. But acknowledging participation is not the same as assigning primary responsibility. And that is where the argument often goes wrong.

Who built the system?

The transatlantic slave trade was not a loose arrangement of opportunistic exchanges. It was a structured, global system.

It was financed by European capital.

European navies protected it.

It was legalised through European and American laws.

It was sustained by plantations in the Americas that depended entirely on enslaved labour.

Africans did not design this system. Africans did not create the laws that turned human beings into property. Africans did not build the economic empires that grew out of this brutality.

So while there was African participation, the architecture of the system - the scale, the organisation, the purpose - was external.

And in any serious analysis of responsibility, the architects of a system cannot be equated with those who were drawn into it.

The dangerous simplicity of blame-sharing

There is a temptation to flatten history into a simple moral equation: “everyone played a role, so everyone is equally responsible.” That is convenient. But it is wrong.

If a crime is organised, financed, and scaled by one group, while others become participants within that system - whether for profit, survival, or power - the levels of responsibility differ.

We must be careful not to confuse involvement with ownership of the crime itself. History Has Already Answered This Question

Consider another atrocity

During the Holocaust, there were Jews who, under extreme conditions, became part of administrative structures within ghettos and camps. Some helped enforce rules. Some identified others. Some made decisions that, in hindsight, raise painful moral questions.

Yet, no one argues that this reality cancels the crime of the Holocaust. No one says reparations to Jewish survivors were invalid because of internal complicity.

Why? Because the system was not theirs. The machinery of destruction was conceived, designed, and executed by others. The same logic must apply consistently.

Follow the money, follow the power

If we are serious about responsibility, we must ask harder questions.

Who financed the ships?

Who insured the cargo of human beings?

Who created laws to protect slave ownership?

Who built generational wealth from unpaid African labour?

Nearly 13 million Africans were transported across the Atlantic. Their labour did not disappear - it built economies, industries, and nations. That wealth still echoes today.

And in any system of wrongdoing, those who provide the capital, create the market, and reap the largest rewards carry the greatest burden of responsibility.

Africa must also be honest

None of this means Africans have nothing to answer for.

We must be honest enough to admit that some African actors chose profit over principle. Some waged wars. Some captured and sold others. Some benefited. That truth should not frighten us.

If anything, it should deepen our own internal conversations about accountability, reconciliation, and historical responsibility.

But let us be clear: self-reflection is not self-erasure. Acknowledging our role does not mean surrendering our claim to justice.

The myth of the “perfect victim”

There is an underlying assumption in some of these arguments - that to demand justice, one must be completely innocent. That standard does not exist anywhere in law or morality.

A victim does not lose the right to justice because they were imperfect.

A crime does not become less of a crime because others were involved at different levels.

If we adopt this flawed standard, then very few injustices in human history would ever qualify for redress.

Why this argument keeps appearing

It is not accidental that African complicity is often raised at the very moment reparations are discussed.

It shifts the focus.

It redistributes blame.

It weakens the clarity of accountability.

Instead of asking who built and benefited most from the system, the conversation becomes tangled in shared guilt. But shared guilt is not equal guilt. And complexity should not be used as a shield against responsibility.

What this resolution really represents

At its core, this is not just about monetary reparations. It is about recognition.

It is about placing on record - clearly and permanently - that what happened was not incidental, not accidental, but one of the greatest crimes in human history.

Nearly 13 million people were taken. Millions more were affected. Entire societies were disrupted.

To acknowledge this truth is not to rewrite history. It is finally time to tell it properly.

A simple truth we must not lose

We can hold two truths at once:

 • Africans participated in aspects of the slave trade
 • The transatlantic slave system was designed, driven, and profited from primarily by external powers

These truths do not cancel each other. They coexist. But they do not carry equal weight.

Conclusion

We must not confuse participation with responsibility. We must not allow complexity to dilute accountability. And we must not be persuaded that acknowledging our own history means abandoning our right to justice.

The call for reparations is not a claim of innocence. It is a claim of truth. And that truth is that one of the greatest crimes ever committed against humanity was organised, scaled, and sustained in ways that cannot be explained away by pointing to those who were drawn into its edges.

History demands honesty.

Justice demands clarity.

And on this matter, both are on Africa’s side.