Kemi Badenoch, Conservative party leader, has once again placed herself at the centre of a deeply sensitive historical debate, questioning why the United Kingdom chose not to take a clear position on a landmark United Nations resolution recognising slavery and the transatlantic slave trade as among the gravest injustices in human history.
The vote, passed on Wednesday with overwhelming support, saw 123 countries back the resolution, while the United States, Israel, and Argentina opposed it. The UK joined 51 others in abstaining, a diplomatic choice that often signals neutrality but can also reflect unease, calculation, or quiet dissent.
Read also: Ghana leads global push for UN recognition of slavery as worst crime against humanity
For Badenoch, neutrality was not enough.
“Russia, China, and Iran vote with others to demand trillions in reparations from UK taxpayers and the Labour government abstains,” she wrote on X. “Britain led the fight to end slavery. Why didn’t Starmer’s representative vote against this? Ignorance or cowardice? We should not be paying for a crime we helped eradicate and still fight today.”
Her remarks sharpen an already polarised conversation about history, responsibility, and restitution. Supporters of the resolution argue that its significance lies not only in acknowledging the scale of the transatlantic slave trade but also in confronting its enduring consequences.
John Mahama, Ghana’s president who led the initiative, framed it in those terms. “The legacy of slavery is not confined to the past,” he said. “Its effects are still visible in inequality, in opportunity, and in the lived experience of millions of people of African descent.”
Read also:Badenoch accuses Starmer of lacking strategy as Iran conflict tests UK stance
Historians estimate that between 10 and 15 million Africans were forcibly taken across the Atlantic between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, with British ships transporting at least three million. West African societies, including those in Senegal, Benin, Ghana, and Nigeria, bore some of the heaviest losses, their populations disrupted and their economies reshaped by centuries of extraction.
The resolution calls on member states to consider formal apologies and contributions to a reparations fund, though details remain undefined. For many African governments and advocacy groups, it represents a step towards long-sought recognition. For critics, it raises fears of open-ended financial obligations and contested historical interpretations.
Read also:Half of Conservative members want Kemi Badenoch replaced before next election, YouGov poll shows
Badenoch’s intervention reflects a consistent position she has taken on the issue. In previous remarks that drew criticism, she challenged the idea that Britain’s industrial rise was built on slavery and colonial exploitation, arguing instead for a more complex reading of history.
That stance continues to resonate with some voters who see calls for reparations as unfair or politically motivated. Others view it as dismissive of historical evidence and lived experience, particularly in countries that still grapple with the legacy of the trade.
The UK government has not publicly framed its abstention as support or opposition. Yet in choosing not to vote either way, it has found itself pulled into a debate that is as much about present-day politics as it is about the past.