By Karabo Matalajoe
In commemoration of Africa Day 2025, Rhodes University’s Global Engagement Division hosted a panel discussion titled “An Exploration of the Concepts of Justice and Reparations.” Held on 26 May in the Bioscience Major lecture theatre, the event brought together scholars and professors embedded in global struggles for justice, memory, and restitution.
Drawing on the African Union’s 2025 theme of reparative justice, the discussion was no polite academic exercise. It was a challenge, a call to move beyond the identification of justice and toward something deeper, messier, and more transformative, connecting to the traumas of slavery, colonialism, apartheid, and genocide to ongoing demands for restorative justice across Africa and the world.
Professor Ciraj Rassool, a leading voice in historical studies and museum restitution, opened with a compelling call for reparations as more than financial compensation. “I like to think of reparations not just as quantum and financial payout,” he said, “but as cultural work, as epistemic work, as political work of social restoration, because we need to be doing a long-term project of social restoration.”
His words were a direct rebuke to the idea that justice can be achieved through ceremonies, repatriation agreements, or glossy policy papers. In his view, true reparations involve cultural, epistemic, and political work and — most critically — a reckoning with the very institutions that continue to benefit from histories of racialised violence.
The government operates through event management. They think restitution is a singular event, a celebration in a government garden. That is not restitution. That is where the work starts,” he said.
Professor Shahid Vawda deepened the conversation by exploring South Africa’s shortcomings in handling restitution. “South Africa’s policy on reparations ignores its own archives, its own history of effort,” he said, referencing a 2003 parliamentary memorandum and the overlooked Sabah Report. “The state sees restitution as a performance- get a tent, invite dignitaries, make speeches, that’s where it ends, but it’s not enough.” He noted.
Vawda highlighted contradictions in how the state handles heritage and memory. He cited cases such as the return of a mummy from the Durban Museum to Egypt and the repatriation of Namibian archives, pointing to a lack of clear ethics around provenance, digital rights, and community consultation. He urged a deeper engagement with what restitution truly means. “What is restorative justice for one community may be different from another,” he noted. “We must centre human dignity, the natural human rights embodied in every single one of us across the globe.”
Professor Pedro Tabensky added a philosophical lens to the discussion. Reflecting on his family’s legacy of displacement due to the Holocaust and the Chinese revolution, he emphasised the importance of ethics as a foundation for social change. “There is no transformation without ethical reflection,” he asserted, advocating for education as a practice of freedom and for the decolonisation of knowledge systems in South African institutions.
The panellists were united on one point: African-led restitution is non-negotiable, and they warned against allowing former colonisers to set the terms of return.
As the event came to an end, speakers highlighted the importance of moving beyond symbolic gestures toward meaningful, long-term commitments. A mutual understanding is that reparative justice must encompass material, cultural, and ethical dimensions.
From South Africa’s own archival legacies to the return of human remains from European museums, the panellists made clear that the work of restitution is not simply about the return of objects or remains; it is about rebuilding relationships, redressing historical silences, and reimagining the future. The task ahead requires political will, community agency, and a commitment to truth.
