Gordon Robinson | Serves them right!

Jamaica’s allegedly sovereign Government crossed the Atlantic, cap in hand, to beg (oops, sorry, “petition”) our enslavers’ King for slavery reparations.

Have we no shame? Are we so accustomed to “negotiating” on our knees with the Empire’s former fellow colony that we use that same mode of transport to converse with the Empire itself? Lookie here: These people treated our ancestors like trash; like they were less than animals; like objects to be brutalized and dehumanized. They treated their pet dogs better.

And we beg them for “reparations”?

Before I advise our licky-licky Government what it should be doing I’ve a query or three about this “petition”? Why hasn’t it been shown to us? Does it beg on our behalf? Or on Government’s behalf? Does it ask King Charlie for reparations for individual descendants of slaves? Or is it begging for donation to the Consolidated Fund to be frittered away like Bauxite Levy, Education Tax, Gas Tax and other contributors to that corruption friendly account?

Why aren’t we joining with CARICOM to bring an action in International Court of Justice (ICJ) for reparations? Me, teacher! Me, teacher!

We’ve been advised such a route to justice is unavailable. We can’t go to ICJ because only State vs State matters are allowed? We can’t go to ICJ because UK didn’t trade in slaves - individuals did. We can’t go there because slavery wasn’t illegal or against any international obligation at the time it was done.

All I can hear is we can’t. We can’t! We flipping everlastingly can’t…..

Well, here’s the thing, “Can’t” is a four letter word so banned from my dictionary. Who keeps telling us we can’t?

For one, in a very carefully worded article, published on his Chambers’ website, 3harecourt.com, young English King’s Counsel (well, young to me; he was called in 1995) Thomas Roe was emphatic that CARICOM countries have no enforceable right to reparations.

Thomas identifies the main obstacles to obligatory reparations. First up:

“The notion of a modern state bringing a claim in respect of a period long before its existence as an independent state presents some difficult issues of state succession.”

What issues? What’s independence got to do with it? When humans were being traded and sent to Jamaica to provide free labour so UK could steal Jamaica’s produce what was Jamaica? Chopped liver? Then it was a Colonial State. Now it’s an independent State.

A State by any other name…..

Thomas continues:

“A more fundamental difficulty is the so-called intertemporal rule. As it was put in the Island of Palmas case in 1928:

‘A juridical fact must be appreciated in the light of the law contemporary with it, and not of the law in force at the time when a dispute in regard to it arises or falls to be settled.’

Or, as it is put in Art 13 of the Articles on State Responsibility :

‘An act of a State does not constitute a breach of an international obligation unless the State is bound by the obligation in question at the time the act occurs.’

Was it truly not a breach of international law to trade in human beings from the 16th to the early 19th centuries? The melancholy answer seems to be that it was not.”

Oh but it very much was young Thomas. In support of his astonishing assertion that trading in human beings was once lawful, Thomas argues:

“Writers in the early 16th and 17th centuries opined that it was contrary to the law of nations for Christians to take fellow Christians as slaves, but the notion that the slave trade was generally a wrong in the law of nations came much later; in particular, by a declaration to that effect signed at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and in the 1841 Treaty for the Suppression of the Slave trade. For the law earlier than that, we must look to state practice, which was not uniformly opposed of the slave trade.”

So, even Thomas admits that trading in Christians was unlawful from as far back as the 16th century. It’s just the rest of us black heathen that were fair game according to Believing Thomas.

Since when, has “State practice” been converted into international law? So the Gaza genocide is ok because it’s “State Practice”? The Holocaust was ok because it was “State Practice”? Gimme a break!

What the Fall-E-T is meant by “not uniformly opposed”? Since when does lack of opposition equate legitimization?

Slavery was NEVER lawful in UK. No Act of UK Parliament ever legalized slavery. UK’s economy benefitted from slavery by taxation and free imports. UK managed and controlled the slave trade without formally legalizing it. UK Government was as much a slave trader as anyone on any slave ship.

UK didn’t legalize Slavery but UK abolished slavery when its overt participation became too embarrassing. Then it immediately paid reparations to former slave owners. Modern International Law has confirmed slavery as a violation of a non-derogable human right; an international crime, including a crime against humanity; and a war crime ( American Society of International Law April 2025) and as “the gravest crime against humanity” ( United Nations Resolution passed 123-3-52; March 25, 2026).

This has ALWAYS been the case. Only Old Testament (Leviticus 25:39-36) and some equally abominable early American colonies’ legislatures condoned slavery. No UK Parliament ever did.

So it’s time for English KCs to give up on this nonsensical “intertemporal rule”. It’s time for Caribbean Governments to stop kowtowing to English KCs’ or Judges’ biased opinions. Since when does a Defendant advise a Claimant?

Slavery is and always was an international crime.

All that’s left to deal with is Thomas’s oddball conclusion “One is driven to conclude that a claim in international law, quite apart from the absence of a tribunal to bring it in, is highly problematic.”

Rubbish! The correct tribunal is ICJ that can hear any allegation of international law breach made by CARICOM members against UK. UK is subject to ICJ’s jurisdiction as it’s a UN member State; party to ICJ’s Statute; and explicitly accepts ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36.2:

“The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory….in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning…..

b. any question of international law;

c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;

d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.”

Jamaica’s argument that this is a State vs State litigation can be built around damage to Jamaica because slave trade benefits were delivered exclusively to UK to Jamaica’s detriment. But Government must commit to using any reparations awarded for specific welfare purposes not for arbitrary government expenditure.

Reparations should include UK Citizenship for every descendant of an enslaved African. If you forcibly transport my ancestors to your colony and enforce lifetime residency they must be your citizens. Does Government’s “petition” consider that? Or are artefacts more important?

What we do NOT need is to beg King Charles for anything. If we lose at ICJ, including for any of the technical reasons so enthusiastically propounded by Thomas Roe, we’re no worse off than we always were. But we’ll retain our dignity. Ask Kenny Rogers what to do:

Let’s go out in a blaze of glory

All good things must end

But, as Eric Williams said to his right hand man in cabinet who suggested T&T should declare war against USA to end up prosperous like Germany and Japan, “suppose we win…”?

When King Charles, who has zero authority, politely tells Jamaica to bugger off and we discover Privy Council can’t tell UK’s Parliament what to do, we’ll be worse off than before because we’d also lose our dignity having behaved as if still slaves to England. Already Daily Mail reported Charles won’t even meet the delegation as he’s on summer vacation in Scotland. Andy Burnham explicitly told Jamaica’s delegation to jump in a lake. Serves them right!

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com