The International Conference on the Crimes of Colonialism in Africa, held on 29 November 2025, in Algiers, Algeria, and was endorsed by the African Union (AU) Assembly of Heads of State, through its Decision 903 in February 2025, was part of efforts to consolidate a united African stance on seeking justice and reparations for the atrocities committed during the colonial era. In essence, it was an appeal to the global community to collaborate, establish a legal framework to hold colonial wrongdoers accountable, and address colonialism’s lasting impact. Creating a comprehensive legal framework to hold those responsible for colonial wrongs accountable is a significant and complex undertaking, as current international law has a “glaring and unacceptable accountability gap” regarding colonial crimes. Existing legal frameworks for international crimes mainly date after colonialism’s peak, excluding these acts. Most African countries accept conventions banning slavery, torture, apartheid, and colonialism. Prohibition of colonialism is a core principle of modern law. Although “colonialism” isn’t explicitly defined in the UN Charter of 1945, the Charter has been amended three times and includes provisions that form the UN’s decolonisation mandate.
Major legal hurdles
The creation of such a framework involves several potential pathways, often combining legal, political, and moral approaches.
The first issue is the Inter-temporal Principle. A primary legal hurdle is the international law doctrine, which generally dictates that actions must be judged by the laws that were in effect at the time they occurred. Regrettably, many colonial actions, while morally indefensible today, were legally permitted and or unregulated under the international law of that era, which was itself Eurocentric. The second issue is the Lack of Explicit Prohibition. Major legal instruments governing international crimes like genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes did not explicitly include colonial crimes as a distinct category, leaving them largely invisible to the formal justice system.
Pathways for future framework
Efforts are ongoing at the international and national levels to address the legal gap where no specific rules govern certain issues, either due to the absence of laws or to insufficient existing laws. These include:
Codification of Colonialism as an International Crime: African nations, led by the AU, aim to recognise and criminalise colonialism under international law, providing a legal basis for accountability.
Utilising the Principle of State Responsibility: A state must repair damages caused by wrongful acts. Advocates argue States should be responsible for ongoing racial inequalities and legacies of colonialism, bypassing inter-temporal limits.
ImplementingComprehensive Reparation: Reparations in international law are not limited to financial compensation and can take various forms, including restitution and reparation of cultural artifacts or l and. African States have in recent years intensified demands for the return of looted artifacts still housed in European museums.
Rehabilitation: Under established international law, a State is obliged to provide psycho-social support to victims or descendants of crime.
Satisfaction: An official and unequivocal apology is considered an important component of the broader framework of reparations and transitional justice under international human rights law, as well as non-repetition.
Guarantee of Non-Repetition: Changing educational systems to include accurate historical accounts and reforming discriminatory laws is the primary mechanism for societies to remedy past wrongs.
Political chicanery
Disgracefully, during the Namibian and German government negotiations, German’s key position was to acknowledge that the 1904 -1908 Ovaherero and Nama atrocities, “from today’s perspective, would be called genocide”.
This phrasing was a deliberate attempt to accept moral and political responsibility without creating a legal precedent for reparations under contemporary international law, as the 1948 UN Genocide Convention did not exist at the time of the atrocities. Also, Germany carefully avoided the term “reparations” and instead agreed to a €1.1 billion development and reconstruction program, characterising it as a gesture to heal wounds rather than a legally binding form of compensation. In so doing, Germany sought to avoid full legal responsibility and negotiate the terms of an apology rather than offer an unconditional one. The distinction between a “historical-political” and a “legal” recognition of genocide is a point of major contention. In summary, this is precisely what the United African legal framework intends to address, and to seek justice and reparations for the atrocities committed during the colonial era. The creation of a definitive legal framework is an ongoing, evolving process that requires significant political will and moral courage from the international community to bridge existing legal gaps and provide meaningful justice for victims and descendants.
Ahmed Attaf, Algerian Foreign Minister, said that, “Africa is entitled to demand recognition of colonial crimes, a vital step toward addressing ongoing consequences like exclusion, marginalisation, and backwardness.” Season’s Greetings!
*Maj. Gen. (Rtd) J. B Tjivikua: is a descendant of victims of 1904-1908 genocide