Keypoints:
- Kwesi Pratt Jr rebukes Reform UK visa proposal
- UN reparations vote exposes deep global divide
- Debate shifts from compensation to structural reform
A SHARP exchange over reparations has intensified the global debate on slavery and colonialism, after Ghanaian political commentator Kwesi Pratt Jnr criticised remarks by Zia Yusuf, who suggested restricting visas from countries supporting reparations.
Pratt, author of Reparations—History, Struggle, Politics and Law, made the remarks in an interview with the UK Socialist Worker newspaper, where he dismissed the proposal as misguided and disconnected from global realities.
‘Nigel Farage and Reform UK are so completely confused. They don’t understand the world in which they live,’ he said.
Why this matters
This dispute highlights a widening divide between African voices pushing for structural reparations and Western political actors resisting calls tied to slavery and colonialism. At stake is not just compensation, but whether global economic systems shaped by that history should be fundamentally reformed.
Ghana’s diplomatic push builds on recent momentum following its UN initiative, including efforts to reshape its global image and leadership role in reparations debates, as explored in this Africa Briefing report.
UN vote sharpens divisions
The exchange follows a United Nations-backed resolution, introduced by Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama at the United Nations, which described reparations as ‘a concrete step towards remedying historical wrongs against Africans and people of African descent’.
The resolution passed with 123 votes in favour, while the United States, Israel and Argentina opposed it, and Britain alongside European countries abstained.
This voting pattern has been widely interpreted as evidence of a growing geopolitical divide over how to address the legacy of slavery.
Africa Briefing has previously examined this emerging fault line in its analysis of the UN vote and in coverage of Ghana’s evolving engagement with Europe following the slavery resolution in this report on France relations.
Pratt described the vote as symbolic but significant. ‘The UN resolution doesn’t solve anything by itself,’ he said. ‘It is an acknowledgement… That’s a tottering first step.’
Reparations ‘not about cash payouts’
Pratt argued that reparations are often misrepresented in Western political debate as demands for direct financial compensation.
‘It’s an insult to the people affected by colonialism to be offered money… No amount of money can pay,’ he said.
Instead, he called for systemic change. ‘What we need to do is to reset the world… build a new world in which the resources of the world belong to the peoples of the world.’
He added that reparations should include structural reforms. ‘Reparations would mean the cancellation of debt… so that resources are not simply recycled back to creditors.’
Colonial legacy and capitalism
Pratt linked the reparations debate to the historical foundations of modern capitalism.
‘What slavery led to, the accumulation of surpluses, became the basis for the building of capitalist society today,’ he said.
This argument remains contested among economists and historians, particularly regarding how directly historical wealth transfers shape present-day inequality.
Still, Pratt rejected Western development models. ‘We cannot copy the example of the advanced capitalist states,’ he said.
Political backlash and economic realities
The controversy escalated after Yusuf, chairman of the hard-right Reform UK party, proposed restricting visas for nationals of countries advocating reparations.
The remarks, widely reported by The Guardian and other UK news outlets, have drawn criticism from those who argue they risk politicising a complex historical issue.
Pratt warned such thinking ignores economic interdependence. ‘Can you imagine what would happen if all Africans were to be withdrawn from the health service…? The NHS [UK’s National Health Service] would simply collapse.’
Some economists argue that implementing reparations frameworks could present complex legal and fiscal challenges for former colonial powers, particularly around liability and precedent.
Historical accountability in focus
The debate has renewed attention on Britain’s role in slavery and its long-term economic effects.
After abolition in 1833, the British government compensated slaveholders rather than enslaved people—a legacy that continues to shape discussions around accountability.
Pratt pointed to this as evidence of ongoing inequality. ‘That payment of compensation carried on until 2015. The current generation is taking compensation,’ he said.
He also argued that institutional benefits persist. ‘If you go to the financial sector in Britain, the profits of the transatlantic slave trade are still being enjoyed today,’ he said.
Global governance and representation
Pratt highlighted global power imbalances as central to the reparations debate.
‘There are 1.4 billion Africans who have no say in anything,’ he said. ‘We only have a voice in the UN general assembly.’
He linked this to colonial-era exclusion and called for reform. ‘We can only insist that our voice matters if these institutions are restructured.’
He also stressed the need for cultural change. ‘The racism we suffer today… needs to be smashed in the reordering of things.’
A widening global debate
For Pratt, the reparations debate is part of a broader political struggle.
‘We are not asking for pity,’ he said. ‘We are engaged in a struggle.’
He described the UN resolution as an initial step toward deeper transformation. ‘The next step is how we mobilise people… to wage a struggle for the building of a fair and just world.’
As global momentum builds, the reparations debate is increasingly shifting beyond historical recognition toward questions of economic justice and systemic reform—an evolution likely to shape international relations in the years ahead.
