On March 25, 2026, the president of Ghana, His Excellency John D. Mahama, raised an issue at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) regarding reparations for slavery. Earlier, Ghana’s president had raised the same issue at the UNGA on 25 September 2025, asking for some “…reparations for the enslavement of our people and the colonisation of our land that resulted in the theft of natural resources, as well as the looting of artefacts and other items of cultural heritage that have yet to be returned in total.”

The president’s address was very much within the scope of sub-Saharan African slave history. In effect, his speech was welcomed with enormous interest, given the history of slavery and its long-term effects on a wider population around the world, especially struggling economies.

Following President Mahama’s speech, there has been a surge of commentary from well-meaning people both within Ghana and abroad. Indeed, these commentaries have reignited the awareness of the slave trade and slavery, but then there seems to be a shroud of mystery from an academic standpoint.

In reviewing the write-up titled President John Mahama and the Global Reawakening of Reparative Justice, put forward by Mr Edmund Kombat, I find it necessary to interrogate his main arguments. Furthermore, I seek to clarify issues the modern generation needs to understand about slavery and the slave trade in their historical context.

Slavery and the Slave Trade as a global phenomenon

Slavery is often narrowly framed as an African ordeal, a view that continues to obscure its global scope. Historical and scholarly records demonstrate that slavery existed in various forms across virtually all regions and civilisations. From the academic point of view, in-depth scholarly works on both slavery and the slave trade point to a global trajectory across time and space.

Herein, The Palgrave Handbook of Global Slavery throughout History (published in 2023), edited by Damian Pargas and Juliane Schiel, outlines an extensive discussion on slavery across time and space. Thus, interested readers must engage such comprehensive studies—whether in print or digital form—to gain a more balanced understanding beyond the African context.

Slave Trade in Africa: The Trans-Saharan and the Trans-Atlantic trades in Chronological Context

Within the context of ancient and medieval African trade networks, the most well-known ones were the trans-Saharan and trans-Atlantic trades. These two trading systems changed the history of African trade. But then, the chronological underpinnings surrounding these two systems put one ahead of the other. The Trans Saharan trade dates as far back as the 7th century BCE, while the Trans-Atlantic trade began around the 15th century CE.

Interestingly, both trading systems focused on similar articles of trading, such as gold and humans. However, the trade routes marked the differences between the two systems. The former linked Sub Saharan Africa to North Africa and the Mediterranean, while the latter extended across the Atlantic Ocean to the Americas, forming the infamous Middle Passage.

Slavery and Slave Trade in Ghana: A Chronological Context

Till this day, Professor Akosua Perbi’s monograph, “A History of Indigenous Slavery in Ghana, From the 15th to the 19th Century”, remains the ultimate reference from the perspective of a Ghanaian as far as slavery in Ghana is concerned. Drawing on rich primary sources and cultural insight, Perbi reveals that slavery was deeply institutionalised in Ghana long before European contact in the late 15th century.

Her comparative analyses highlight both local forms of servitude and their transformation during the Atlantic era. Notably, her studies focus on the period when many of today’s Ghanaian ethnic societies emerged and interacted within broader systems of exchange and power.

Issues at Heart: President Mahama’s Rallying Cry, and Kombat’s ‘Political’ Endorsement

The above historical perspectives frame a broader discourse necessary for understanding slavery’s complexity. Evidence from the Trans Saharan trade and Perbi’s scholarship shows that slavery in Africa predated European intervention. This challenges overly simplistic calls for reparations that rest on a singular narrative of victimhood. Kombat’s article arguably leans more toward political admiration than analytical engagement.

His praise of Mahama’s “exceptional leadership” risks becoming an act of hero worship, contrasting with the silence toward previous Ghanaian leaders—such as Nana Akufo Addo—who similarly addressed reparative justice at UN gatherings in September 2023. Furthermore, the notion of reparations itself raises practical questions: Who should pay? Who should receive compensation? And how should funds be distributed? Indeed, the concerns of a reparation sound like a good move, but the reality is that it still places the African leadership as ‘beggars’ in their own right, emboldening a continuous mockery of our capabilities in post-colonial systems.

The Unanswered Questions

In descending to the questions that are yet to be answered, the first is to emphasise what a senior colleague said to me upon discussing this matter: will the superiors take it (reparation) seriously and act on it positively? This question is in the same vein as that of Kombat’s main question. The answer is clear and simple; we are biting more than we can chew.

The statistical breakdown of the UN voting on the subject was evident that the real financiers and ‘big boys’ of global power, the United States and other economically vibrant countries, except Russia and China, have shown no readiness to commit to compensatory frameworks. On that note, I side with Kombat’s subtle scepticism that seeks to probe if the world will act on this reparation proposition. Doubtless, it is practically impossible.

Second, if funding were approved, which countries would be entitled to benefit? After centuries of border changes and state creation, defining rightful beneficiaries is nearly impossible.

Third, in what form would reparations come—economic aid, infrastructural investment, technological support, or military assistance? Each path poses risks of deepening neo colonial dependencies. Today, it looks as if almost all African countries are heavily indebted to the World Bank and its outlet, the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This is another vestige of evidence to suggest that our fingers are already tightly gripped between the teeth of the world's superpowers.

The Hypocrisy of Slavery and Slave Trade Narrative

There is undeniable hypocrisy surrounding the slavery discourse in Africa. Kombat’s article, for instance, celebrates Mahama’s speech without reckoning with uncomfortable local realities. But, as already emphasised, students of slavery must always see the phenomenon as existing in a given shape and form, even before the advent of the Europeans.

This is to place significant emphasis on historical features of slavery that are given little focus vis-à-vis the popular commentaries and symbolic images that tend to focus more on violence and tragic circumstances. Herein, the ‘little focus’ which no one talks about is the middleman role played by chiefs, tribes and kingdoms in our societies.

The creation of slave markets, such as the Salaga market and various trade routes that fostered transactional systems between the Europeans and the indigenous ethnic societies, was not only about gold, but also about humans who were traded by their own people. These transactions enabled some local empires, including the Denkyira, Akwamu, Asante, and Fante, to rub shoulders with one another and bid for more power and territory. This raises difficult but necessary questions:

Who was the seller?

This question only emphasises whether the slave seller was the local man or the white man. In many African territories, including Ghana, it is only fair to assume that the power brokers, such as the chiefs and kingdom elders, had much control over these systems. Often, it was local rulers and elites managing systems of captivity and exchange.

Who was the buyer?

Without any equivocation, it was the Europeans — whose colonial economies demanded labour for plantations, railways, construction and other enterprises.

What did the sellers gain?

Wealth and power—comparable to how modern leaders exploit natural resources for personal benefit, squandering wealth on greed rather than nation-building.

What did the buyers gain?

Sustained economic growth and the foundation of capitalist expansion are still visible in today’s global disparity.

Way Forward: Rekindling Hope and Responsibility

In the post-slavery and post-colonial era, we must acknowledge that as a nation, we have inflicted more harm upon ourselves than others ever did. After 69 years of independence, the greed and corruption—particularly within politics—reveal that we achieved only political freedom from the British but failed to pursue other essential dimensions of liberation. We did not fully grasp that true freedom or independence extends across every facet of human life.

Today, many in leadership claim to serve the people, yet their actions show they serve their own interests instead. As I often state, our challenges are more ethical than intellectual. Ghana does not need reparations to advance as a nation; what it needs is a clear, visionary plan and sincere hearts among leaders—whether political, traditional, or academic.

It was such a purposeful vision that shaped the development of Europe and America, even as they advanced at the expense of others (subjugating and trampling on others). This historical dynamic explains why slavery and colonisation remain the enduring bane of the Black man, yet tools that propelled the white man’s capitalist progress, making their societies still appealing to many young Ghanaians and Africans seeking a share of that prosperity.

Conclusion

Ultimately, without a shred of doubt, the commodification of humans in slavery and the slave trade was repulsive and condemnable. However, it must be noted that it was not solely European enterprises but transactional systems involving both African sellers and European buyers.

The Europeans operated within long term capitalist strategies; the Africans, in contrast, often pursued short term gains. Understanding this dual complicity is essential—not to absolve anyone, but to acknowledge responsibility and chart a realistic path forward based on accountability, self reliance, and ethical leadership.