Why Jurisdiction Matters in the Global Reparations Debate

The Freedmen Reparations Fund Trust (FRFT) has formally issued notice to the Government of Ghana and the African Union regarding the proposed United Nations General Assembly resolution declaring the Transatlantic Slave Trade and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans as the gravest crime against humanity.

Let us be clear: slavery was a crime against humanity. The historical record is undeniable. Millions were trafficked. Millions more perished. The consequences remain measurable today.

However, acknowledgment and reparations are not the same thing.

The Legal Difference Between Recognition and Remedy

International declarations serve a moral and symbolic purpose. They can correct historical narratives and affirm global consensus. But reparations—especially in any legally actionable form—require more than moral clarity. They require:

• Identifiable legal injury

• A sovereign authority responsible for that injury

• A clearly defined beneficiary class

Without these elements, reparations lose legal defensibility and become politically diffuse.

The Distinct Status of Freedmen

The descendants of U.S. chattel slavery—Freedmen—constitute a distinct American-formed people. The injury they suffered was codified under U.S. federal and state law. Racialized chattel enslavement, Reconstruction abandonment, segregation statutes, redlining, and discriminatory federal policy were executed within a specific jurisdiction: the United States.

That jurisdictional fact matters.

Reparative standing flows from identifiable harm tied to identifiable governmental authority. It cannot be generalized across continents without collapsing legal clarity.

The Risk of Broad “Diaspora” Alignment

A global diaspora framework risks:

• Diluting historically traceable claims

• Weakening defined beneficiary identification

• Undermining sovereign accountability

Historical acknowledgment at the United Nations level may be appropriate. But legally actionable reparations must remain tied to the governments that enacted, enforced, and materially benefited from the racialized chattel system in question.

Precision strengthens justice.

FRFT’s Position

The Freedmen Reparations Fund Trust supports historical accuracy and moral recognition of slavery as a grave crime against humanity. At the same time, we maintain that reparations must be grounded in jurisdictional responsibility and a defined beneficiary class.

Clarity is not division.

Precision is not hostility.

Legal structure is not opposition to truth.

FRFT remains open to structured dialogue grounded in documented history, sovereign accountability, and international legal standards.