Wole Soyinka on Reparations for Africa

by Ibrahima Faye

This essay reflects on Wole Soyinka’s strong views about reparations for Africa. Soyinka is known for speaking plainly and honestly, and here he does the same. He insists that reparations must be practical, material, and rooted in truth. Reading this piece, I felt it was a necessary reminder that justice is not only about what others owe Africa, but also about what Africans owe themselves.

The first important point Soyinka makes is that restitution should come before reconciliation. In his view, apologies or symbolic gestures mean little if they are not backed by material redress. Words cannot substitute for resources, development, or actual returns of wealth. He believes reconciliation without restitution is shallow. This is a powerful argument because it flips the usual process: instead of forgiving first and hoping for change later, Soyinka demands that justice must come before healing.

The second point is that reparations are not only an external matter between Africa and the West. Soyinka stresses that African leaders and elites must also be held accountable. Too often, wealth is hoarded or misused inside African countries. Corruption, mismanagement, and greed prevent ordinary Africans from benefiting even when resources are available. He argues that reparations must include domestic reform, otherwise external funds will be wasted.

The third point is that reparations are both moral and practical. They are moral because they address centuries of injustice and exploitation. They are practical because they require real systems asset recovery, financial reforms, political accountability, and policies that ensure resources are used for the people. Soyinka insists that without internal discipline and external restitution together, reparations will not succeed.

My feelings about Soyinka’s argument are very supportive. As a humanist, I believe morality must be backed by consequences. Symbolic apologies without practical change are empty. I agree with Soyinka that restitution should be the foundation. Without concrete action, reconciliation becomes performance, not repair.

I also strongly agree with his focus on domestic accountability. Many African leaders have enriched themselves while ordinary citizens suffer. If reparations are ever won from the West, but they end up in the hands of corrupt elites, then nothing will change. This is why internal reform is just as important as external justice. As a secular thinker, I appreciate Soyinka’s realism: he does not romanticize Africa’s leaders, but demands honesty and responsibility.

At the same time, I think reconciliation still has value alongside restitution. People also need recognition and acknowledgment of harm. Healing requires both truth and resources. But I understand his emphasis: without restitution, reconciliation risks becoming hollow.

In conclusion, Soyinka’s essay is blunt but wise. Reparations must be both international and domestic. Africa must demand what is owed from the West, but also reform itself internally. Restitution before reconciliation ensures that justice is real, not symbolic. For reparations to have meaning, they must deliver material benefits and moral clarity at the same time.