In his speech to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on 17 March 2026, Ambassador James Kariuki, UK Charge d’Affaires to the UN, confirmed that the UK had an official policy of confining the Transatlantic Slavery that lasted for over 400 years to the dustbin of history. According to the Ambassador, the UK was denying liability and refusing to pay reparation for the Transatlantic Slavery on the grounds of the international laws of intertemporality and non-retroactivity. By intertemporality, the UK government meant that applicable law at the material time permitted the barbaric and inhuman enslavement of Africans. By non-retroactivity, the UK government meant that the violent enslavement of Africans violated no laws.
The legal authorities upon which the Ambassador relies for rejecting reparation for the Transatlantic Slavery do not provide a shield against civil liability. The civil law addressed the matter of damage caused by activities which although were not prohibited by international law nevertheless still caused harm. The UK government, for example, in 1833 accepted civil liability and paid £20 million to 47,000 slave owners for the loss of their slaves pursuant to abolition. YPUK as heir to the Yoruba legacy is intending similarly to claim civil compensation on behalf of the Yoruba nation for the loss of up to 5 million of its people to the Transatlantic Slavery. The UK government previously set the value of compensation at £20 million, £30 billion in today’s money, and that is the figure that YPUK had in mind.
International law is whatever the majority of the countries of the world agree it to be. That is it. A new international law – the Slavery Reparation Law – was so established on 17 March 2026. After listening to all the legal arguments, including the doctrines of intertemporality and non-retroactivity, 123 countries made reparation for slavery a new international law, 52 countries (mostly the slavery perpetrator countries and their allies) voted against it, and 3 countries abstained. The role of the UN Assembly in this instance was merely to bring the countries of the world together in one place as a matter of convenience to make the decision. The UN Security Council (UNSC) has no power of veto over the new law. America, the UK and the EU have no power of veto over the new law. Indeed, the new law is justiciable.
The common law of England was generally antislavery. In the landmark 1569 Cartwright case, the court held that ‘England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in’, essentially establishing that the law did not recognise slavery as legitimate. In the celebrated 1772 Sommerset case, the court held that slavery was illegitimate unless it was authorised by parliament (which it never did); Lord Mansfield in his judgement said this:
‘The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law…It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law.’
The newly proclaimed international law is firmly rooted. The Transatlantic Slavery was a ‘crime against humanity’. The Commonwealth Heads of Government said so in the communique they issued at the end of their meeting in Apia, Samoa, on 26 October 2024. At Paragraph 21, the Heads stated unequivocally that the Transatlantic Slavery was an appalling tragedy in the history of humanity in its abhorrent barbarism, magnitude, organised nature, and negation of the essence of the victims. The Heads stated further that the Transatlantic Slavery was a crime against humanity that should always have been so.
At Paragraph 22, the Heads recognised the enduring effects of the Transatlantic Slavery on the peoples of some Commonwealth states and the importance of ‘reparatory justice’. To this end, the Heads agreed to engage in a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity to address the harms caused by the Transatlantic Slavery.
UNGA in Declaration A/80/L.48 dated 17 March 2026
1. Unequivocally condemns the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans, slavery and the transatlantic slave trade as the most inhumane and enduring injustice against humanity;
2. Declares the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans as the gravest crime against humanity;
3. Emphasizes the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans as the gravest crime against humanity by reason of the definitive break in world history, scale, duration, systemic nature, brutality and enduring consequences that continue to structure the lives of all people through racialized regimes of labour, property and capital;
4. Recognizes that the trafficking of Africans and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans constitute violations of jus cogens;
5. Reaffirms its collective recognition of the profound and lasting impacts of the abhorrent regimes of slavery and colonialism and the persistence of racial discrimination and neo-colonialism on Africans and people of African descent and how this continues to cause immense suffering, cultural disruption, economic exploitation, emotional trauma and unending discrimination endured by Africans and people of African descent throughout history;
6. Affirms the importance of addressing historical wrongs affecting Africans and people of African descent in a manner that promotes justice, human rights, dignity and healing, and emphasizes that claims for reparations represent a concrete step towards remedying historical wrongs against Africans and people of African descent;
7. Notes that in various historical contexts, reparations and other forms of redress have been provided in respect of other grave crimes committed against particular groups, reflecting the principle under international law that international wrongful acts entail a duty of reparation, and notes with concern that no comprehensive reparatory framework has yet been realized for the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans, despite its scale, duration and enduring consequences…
Statute of limitation did not apply to crimes against humanity under international law. These crimes could be prosecuted regardless of when they were committed. Liability was in perpetuity. The legal principle of illimitability was established by the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (1968) and by Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitation to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (CETS 082) adopted by the Council of Europe in 1974 stated unequivocally that prosecution and punishment for these crimes were not barred by time. Jurisprudence from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) also confirmed that these crimes were ‘imprescriptible’.
All the aforesaid reveal the fallacy of the legal argument put forward by the UK and its allies against reparation for the Transatlantic Slavery. YPUK has written to Yvette Cooper, Foreign Affairs minister, to request for negotiations on reparation for the Yorubaland. YPUK intends to litigate if the request is refused.
This lecture series was brought to you by the Yoruba Party in the UK. To support our work please donate and/or join at www.yorubapartyuk.org