A palpable surge of emotion swept through Brixton’s New Park Road Baptist church as the packed congregation rose to sing Bob Marley’s Redemption Song. The service on Sunday marked the anniversary of the 1781 Zong massacre, when more than 100 enslaved Africans were thrown overboard so the ship’s owners could claim insurance for “lost cargo”. And the song – a lament for the horrors of transatlantic slavery and a tribute to the resilience of those who fought for freedom – set the tone for a landmark visit to the UK by Jamaican officials to petition King Charles over reparations for slavery.
The petition, backed by leaders of other Caribbean nations, asks the monarch to request legal advice from the privy council, the final court of appeal for UK overseas territories and some Commonwealth countries. It asks Charles, who is still Jamaica’s head of state, to seek guidance on three questions: whether the forced transport of Africans to Jamaica was lawful; whether it constituted a crime against humanity; and whether Britain is under an obligation to provide restitution for slavery and its enduring consequences. Led by the culture minister, Olivia Grange, the Jamaican delegation included lawyers and members of the country’s national council on reparations.
The delegation met diaspora communities, UK politicians, church leaders and institutions – including the British Museum, from which Jamaica is seeking the return of artefacts. Grange also held talks with the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, though sources say these were not focused on reparations. Jamaica’s petition has ignited a fierce debate about the legality of transatlantic slavery and political implications.
The former privy council member Lord Sumption dismissed the legal strategy as “nonsense” and argued that the issue was “not a question of law at all” but one of morals and politics. Jamaican experts have defended the legality of the petition. Speaking at a briefing for UK parliamentarians, Edward Fitzgerald KC insisted Jamaica was acting in accordance with a little‑used mechanism in the Judicial Committee Act 1833 which allows the king to refer questions of “legal or constitutional nature” to the privy council when they cannot be resolved through ordinary courts.
Harj Narulla, a member of the UK team of counsels, told the Guardian it was an “obvious jurisdictional route”. Ulele Burnham, another member of the UK legal team, added: “The petition argues that the atrocities, the forced uprooting, the violent subjugation for profit was of course immoral, everyone knows that. But the petition’s very focus is to show that it was also clearly inconsistent with the law of the time.
Non-Europeans did not suddenly become human when slavery ended. And even in those days, humans had some rights in English and international law.” In Jamaica, though the pursuit of reparations is supported by the two main parties, members of the opposition People’s National party raised concerns that the delegation had not managed to secure a meeting with the king. Grange said a meeting with Charles “was not part of the plan”.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
