Gus John | Reform UK redefines reparations

On June 30, 2026, Natricia Duncan, writing in The Guardian in Kingston, reported that a Jamaican delegation will travel to the United Kingdom in September to formally petition King Charles to seek legal guidance on Jamaica’s slavery reparations claim against Britain.
According to Duncan, the petition asks the King to request advice from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on whether the forced transportation of Africans to Jamaica was lawful, whether it constituted a crime against humanity, and whether Britain is obligated to provide restitution for slavery and its enduring consequences.
The report drew a sharp response from Suella Braverman MP, Reform UK’s spokesperson on education, skills and equality. Braverman argued that, if reparations are to be considered, former colonies should compensate Britain for what she described as the investment, effort and contribution that helped lay the foundations for modern democracies. While acknowledging that slavery was abhorrent, she insisted there is no legal basis for present-day Britons to pay for actions committed centuries ago.
But, who is Suella Braverman?
She is not a descendant of Britain’s imperial elite. Her mother’s family originated in Tamil Nadu before migrating to Mauritius, while her father’s family moved from Goa to Kenya during the colonial era. Born in London in 1980, she rose through British politics, serving as attorney general before becoming home secretary under Liz Truss and later under Rishi Sunak
Braverman built a reputation for courting controversy. In 2023, she claimed in the Mail on Sunday that perpetrators of group-based child sexual exploitation were “almost all British Pakistani”. Yet, Home Office research had previously concluded that offenders were most commonly white, and found no proven connection between ethnicity and such crimes. The newspaper later defended its reporting by saying it had relied on information from the home secretary’s office.
The dangers of such rhetoric are not abstract. In August 2015, 81-year-old Mushin Ahmed was brutally murdered by white racists in Rotherham after being falsely accused of being a “groomer”. The crime became a grim reminder of how inflammatory narratives can fuel hatred and violence.
Braverman was eventually dismissed by Sunak after accusing the Metropolitan Police of political bias in its handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Earlier this year, she left the Conservative Party to join Reform UK.
Her latest intervention on reparations effectively suggests that former colonies should be grateful for colonialism and compensate Britain for infrastructure built during imperial rule. The argument is akin to asking victims of burglary to reward the burglar for improving their understanding of home security.
What is striking is that, despite more than a century of resistance to reparations claims, few defenders of empire have gone so far as to argue that former colonies actually owe reparations to Britain.
Opponents of reparatory justice have traditionally relied on two arguments. One is that slavery was legal at the time and therefore generated no obligation for later compensation. The other is that contemporary generations should not bear responsibility for wrongs committed by their ancestors. Yet neither argument supports the claim that colonised societies owe a debt to their colonisers.
To accept that proposition would be like arguing that the European powers that met in Berlin in 1884–85 to partition Africa were benevolent philanthropists deserving repayment for their investments.
Braverman’s position is undoubtedly aimed at Reform UK’s growing support base. Throughout her political career, she has associated herself with hard-right positions on race, immigration and national identity. Her former party described her defection to Reform as “a matter of when, not if”.
Yet the global conversation on reparations has moved far beyond the caricature of a fringe campaign. Increasingly, even descendants of those who benefited directly from slavery have begun to acknowledge historical responsibility.
In 2023, a group calling itself Heirs of Slavery publicly reflected on the wealth their ancestors accumulated from the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans. Its members include descendants of plantation owners, slave traders, merchants, bankers and lawmakers.
They argue that Britain and other colonial powers must acknowledge slavery as a crime against humanity and address its continuing consequences. They support efforts by institutions such as the Royal Family, the Church of England and the Bank of England to examine their historical links to slavery and consider their responsibilities to descendants of the enslaved.
Most significantly, they recognise that silence is no longer an option. In their view, those who inherited the benefits of slavery have an obligation to confront its legacy and contribute to discussions on repair, reconciliation and justice.
This reflects a broader shift in public discourse. Reparations are no longer confined to activists, academics or civil society organisations. The issue is increasingly being discussed in mainstream political, legal and institutional arenas, both in Britain and across the former colonial world.
Whether or not Jamaica’s petition succeeds before the Privy Council, one reality is clear: the reparations movement has reached a new stage. Britain and its institutions can no longer dismiss it as an irritant at the margins of public debate.
The monarchy, the Church of England and other national institutions now face growing pressure to engage seriously with questions of historical accountability. Likewise, governments across the Caribbean, Africa and South Asia must work alongside civil society movements to ensure that reparatory justice remains part of the agenda in their relations with former colonial powers.
Suella Braverman’s intervention may have been intended to challenge the reparations movement. Instead, it has highlighted how far the conversation has advanced. The question is no longer whether reparations should be discussed. The discussion is already taking place. The challenge now is determining where it leads.
Professor Augustine John is a human rights campaigner and honorary fellow at the UCL Institute of Education, University of London.