Reparations & courage of historical accountability: President Ali and CARICOM are right

Dear Editor,
President Dr Irfaan Ali’s position and that of CARICOM on reparations deserves firm support. The passage of time does not, in itself, extinguish responsibility for historical wrongs whose consequences endure. In his interview with ITV News correspondent Robert Moore, published ahead of King Charles III’s forthcoming visit to Guyana, President Ali maintained that expressions of regret should be followed by a formal apology and reparatory justice. His position reflects a reasonable and principled demand, grounded in the Caribbean’s longstanding pursuit of historical accountability.
The significance of this intervention extends beyond the formalities of a royal visit. It concerns the basis upon which formerly colonised societies engage states and institutions that benefited from their subjugation and exploitation. A durable relationship between Britain and the Caribbean must accommodate difficult truths. Friendship gains credibility when it is sustained by an honest acknowledgement of the past and a willingness to address its continuing consequences.
The distinction between regret and apology is therefore fundamental. Regret can acknowledge suffering without identifying responsibility. A formal apology recognises wrongdoing and accepts responsibility for it, establishing a foundation for meaningful reconciliation. CARICOM’s reparations framework places such an apology at the centre of its agenda. President Ali’s intervention consequently expresses an established regional principle with clarity and conviction.
The historical foundations of that principle are substantial. Slavery was sustained through legislation, commercial arrangements, financial institutions and coercive state power. Human beings were treated inhumanely and as transferable property, while their labour, culture, religion, family relationships, and futures were subordinated and exploited to an economic system organised around extraction. CARICOM’s demand addresses the responsibility of the Governments and institutions that created, protected and benefited from those arrangements.
Britain’s approach to emancipation reveals a profound imbalance in its recognition of loss. The British Government allocated millions of pounds/ dollars to compensate slave owners for the loss of what the law had recognised as their property, the audacity to label “fellow human beings” as such. Research published by the Bank of England documents these arrangements and the financial intermediaries who profited from administering them. The state demonstrated considerable capacity to identify, calculate and compensate the financial claims of enslavers.
That history raises an unavoidable moral question: why did the loss of ownership over human beings attract such precise compensation, while the suffering and dispossession of those human beings failed to receive comparable recognition? Is it because they were black people? The historical willingness to compensate enslavers makes the continued resistance to meaningful reparatory engagement especially difficult to justify.
The objection that present generations did not personally participate in slavery does not resolve this question. Individual guilt and institutional responsibility are distinct. States and enduring institutions inherit assets, authority and obligations across generations. Their continuity cannot reasonably be recognised for the preservation of wealth and prestige while being disregarded whenever questions of historical accountability arise. A credible reparations process must examine documented benefit, institutional continuity and the persistence of harm.
Such an examination requires evidence, careful analysis and good-faith negotiation. It need not attribute every contemporary Caribbean difficulty to slavery or colonialism. Domestic governance, public policy and subsequent economic developments also influence national outcomes. Recognising these factors strengthens the argument by making it more precise. It does not justify excluding colonial extraction and inherited disadvantage from a serious assessment of the region’s development.
CARICOM’s framework gives this historical and moral argument practical direction. Its Heads of Government approved a revised 10-point plan for reparatory justice in July 2026. In September, Secretary General Dr Carla Barnett outlined an agenda encompassing public health, education, psychological rehabilitation, cultural development, support for Indigenous communities, gender justice, debt cancellation and monetary compensation. These priorities connect historical accountability with the restoration of opportunity and the strengthening of Caribbean societies.
Implementation must be equally rigorous. Any settlement should deliver demonstrable benefits to affected communities through transparent administration, public reporting, meaningful participation, and clearly defined objectives. The legitimacy of the claim carries a corresponding responsibility to ensure that the resources secured produce lasting improvements in people’s lives.
It is important to note that Guyana’s development ambitions do not diminish the force of this case. Contemporary economic progress cannot retrospectively legitimise historical exploitation or erase the responsibility arising from it. A society’s determination to overcome inherited disadvantage should never become the justification for dismissing its claim for justice. An increasingly confident Guyana can pursue reparations with greater independence, insisting that the issue be assessed on historical evidence and moral principle rather than present financial need.
The forthcoming royal visit offers an opportunity to advance this discussion with bold confidence, dignity and resolve. The constitutional distinction between the King’s role and the British Government’s authority over policy and public expenditure must be respected. That distinction should help identify the appropriate channels for engagement and decision-making. It should not permit responsibility to be deferred indefinitely.
Within those constitutional boundaries, King Charles should use his influence and the moral authority of his office to help make historical wrongs right by simply doing what is right: supporting honest acknowledgement and encouraging meaningful engagement on reparatory justice. He cannot unilaterally determine a financial settlement, but his capacity to give recognition, encourage reflection and lend seriousness to reconciliation remains significant. A formal apology, delivered with the necessary Governmental authority and followed by a credible commitment to repair, would give practical meaning to that leadership.
President Ali’s position demonstrates that diplomatic courtesy and historical conviction can coexist. Guyana can welcome the King, value its relationship with Britain and insist that the suffering of its ancestors receive an adequate response. Such engagement reflects the confidence of a sovereign nation that understands both the value of cooperation and the obligations of remembrance.
CARICOM’s collective leadership reinforces this approach. Regional coordination strengthens the negotiating voice of small states and sustains the pursuit of justice beyond individual interviews, royal visits or changes of Government. It provides a framework through which historical research, public advocacy and diplomacy can lead to concrete commitments.
President Ali and CARICOM are therefore right to insist that recognition must lead to action. An apology should establish the basis for substantive negotiations; negotiations should produce credible commitments; and those commitments should yield measurable repair.
A mature relationship between Britain and the Caribbean requires the courage to confront the history that shaped it. The descendants of those whose humanity was denied are entitled to have their experiences acknowledged seriously and their claims considered respectfully. King Charles has an opportunity to contribute to that process through principled moral leadership. Britain, in turn, has an opportunity to demonstrate that its commitment to justice extends to an honest examination of its own enduring responsibilities.
Yours respectfully,
Jermaine Figueira
Former Member of Parliament