Framing reparations for historical injustices: the normative and strategic potential of the African Union Transitional Justice Policy

2.1 AUTJP in context: origins, objectives and continental significance

The adoption of the AUTJP in February 2019 marked a significant milestone in the development of continental normative frameworks for peace building, justice and reconciliation. Emerging from over a decade of reflection and consultations, the AUTJP builds upon earlier instruments such as the 2006 African Union Policy on Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development (PCRD).7 That document had already emphasised the importance of justice, accountability, truth seeking and institutional reform - often through community-based or traditional mechanisms - as integral components of sustainable peace.8 Despite the multiplicity of transitional justice experiences across the continent, including efforts to address the legacies of apartheid, authoritarianism and violent conflict,9 the AU had, until 2019, no unified policy framework to guide these processes or facilitate the sharing of experiences among its member states. This normative gap was explicitly acknowledged in the 2011 report of the Panel of the Wise of the AU Peace and Security Council, entitled ‘Non-Impunity, Truth, Peace, Justice, and Reconciliation in Africa: Opportunities and Constraints’,10 adopted at its tenth meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The report recommended that the AU develop a continental transitional justice policy grounded in African experiences and capable of establishing common standards and providing practical guidance to member states.11 Following the endorsement of the Panel’s report and its recommendations, the AU Assembly tasked the Commission with leading the policy development process in close collaboration with member states and key stakeholders, including the African Governance Architecture’s Working Group on Human Rights and Transitional Justice.12 This consultative process culminated in the finalisation of the AUTJP in 2018 and its adoption by the AU Assembly at its thirty-second ordinary session held in February 2019.13

As former Chairperson of the AU Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat, emphasised, the AUTJP represents a

transitional justice toolkit that is home-grown, unique to Africa, rich in its progressive methodologies and approaches, and rooted in African shared values, traditional justice systems and experiences, constituting a significant contribution to the global discourse and practice on transitional justice.14

Recognising the diversity of transitional justice practices across the continent, the policy was not intended to impose a single model. Rather, it establishes guiding principles, reference standards and flexible parameters to assist member states in the design, implementation and evaluation of context-specific justice processes.15 The policy explicitly avoids proposing a one-size-fits-all model, acknowledging that such an approach would risk emptying transitional justice of its transformative potential. Instead, it affirms that justice processes must remain dynamic, flexible and responsive to the evolving realities, needs and aspirations of each society in transition.16

The AUTJP, therefore, pursues a broad and multidimensional purpose. It seeks to provide African states, institutions and communities with a normative and procedural framework capable of addressing the legacies of conflict, authoritarian rule and structural violence. By rooting its guidance in African values, traditions and historical contexts, the policy aims to promote inclusive peace, social cohesion, dignity and accountability. Importantly, it was not conceived as a legally binding treaty, but as a soft law instrument - meant to guide and support national and regional transitional justice efforts, without imposing rigid legal obligations. Nonetheless, the AUTJP’s trans-formative ambition and inclusive vision are reinforced by its deep anchorage in the broader African normative architecture. Rather than standing alone, the policy draws conceptual authority and political legitimacy from key AU legal instruments,17 including the Constitutive Act of the AU,18 the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter),19 and the Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council.20 These foundational texts articulate principles of dignity, equality, accountability, non-discrimination and people-centred governance - all of which are reflected in the AUTJP’s emphasis on inclusive, participatory and transformative justice. In particular, the AUTJP positions itself as advancing the noble goals of the AU’s Agenda 2063, particularly its declaration to ‘end all wars in Africa by 2020’ and its emphasis on human rights, justice, peace and security, and good governance.21

Moreover, the AUTJP is mutually reinforcing with other thematic AU instruments that form part of the continent’s broader justice architecture. It complements the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (African Women’s Protocol)22 by emphasising gender-sensitive and transformative reparations for women affected by violence and exclusion.23 It aligns with the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (African Democracy Charter)24 in its focus on accountable governance, citizen participation and institutional reform as essential components of sustainable peace.25 The policy addresses the needs of internally displaced persons through a justice-oriented framework that includes consultation rights, recognition of displacement as a human rights violation, reparations for harm suffered, and measures for secure return and resettlement - approaches that complement and strengthen the protection framework established by the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa.26 Together, these instruments form a continental rights-based architecture that prioritises justice, prevention and reparation. In aligning itself with these instruments, the AUTJP not only strengthens the AU’s internal legal coherence, but also affirms the principle of normative integration, in which peace, human rights and democratic governance are understood as mutually reinforcing and interdependent components of African-led transformation. In this sense, although the AUTJP formally is a non-binding soft law instrument, its normative weight lies in the fact that it reaffirms and operationalises legally binding commitments already undertaken by African states under existing AU treaties and charters. By giving practical expression to principles enshrined in these instruments, the AUTJP contributes to shaping the contours of state responsibility in transitional justice processes. It acts not only as a policy guide but also as a normative catalyst for implementation, reinforcing the legal and moral obligations to which African states have already committed.

The adoption of the AUTJP holds deeper conceptual and epistemological significance. Scholars - such as the former Chairperson of the AU Commission - have emphasised that the AUTJP does not merely transplant international transitional justice norms into African settings.27 Rather, it reconfigures those norms by grounding them in Africa’s own historical experiences, political struggles, governance traditions and emancipatory aspirations.28 In this respect, the AUTJP can be read as an articulation of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) within the field of transitional justice. It challenges the universalising tendencies of dominant liberal legal paradigms - often developed in post-World War II or post-Cold War contexts29 - by foregrounding African agency, legal pluralism and historical specificity. Instead of treating transitional justice as a sequence of imported procedures aimed at restoring order, the AUTJP envisions it as a politically generative and historically responsive process tied to questions of structural injustice, sovereignty and reparative transformation. Its emphasis on community-based mechanisms, context-specific pathways and African normative sources reflects a commitment to epistemic decolonisation, challenging Eurocentric hierarchies of legal knowledge and affirming the legitimacy of African contributions to global justice discourses. In this sense, the AUTJP does not merely complement existing international norms - it contributes to their transformation by offering an alternative jurisprudence grounded in postcolonial critique, participatory justice and pan-African values. This decolonial and transformative orientation is further reflected in the AUTJP’s redefinition of ‘transition’ itself, which can be interpreted as moving beyond narrow post-conflict or post-authoritarian frameworks to encompass the structural legacies of historical injustice that continue to shape African societies.

2.2 Expanding the boundaries of transition: the AUTJP and the legacies of historical injustice

Mainstream transitional justice frameworks, notably the United Nations (UN)’s 2004 Report on the Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies,30 have played a central role in institutionalising the field, but they remain deeply shaped by liberal peace-building paradigms and Western conceptions of justice.31 These paradigms conceptualise transitional justice as part of a broader effort to restore the rule of law and promote state stability, with a strong emphasis on judicial reform, sequencing of mechanisms, and alignment with international human rights norms.

The 2004 Report, for instance, frames transitional justice as primarily relevant for ‘societies emerging from conflict or authoritarian rule’ (paragraph 9) and promotes ‘rebuilding institutions’ (paragraph 6) as a central goal.32 It prioritises state building and legal continuity over structural transformation or historical justice.33 Similarly, the EU’s 2015 Policy Framework on Support to Transitional Justice links transitional justice explicitly to development and stabilisation agendas, viewing it as a tool for consolidating peace, governance, and human rights in fragile post-conflict contexts. Some scholars have argued that these liberal, institutionalised models of transitional justice often risk reinforcing top-down, externally imposed understandings of justice, which may be out of step with local priorities, cultural norms, and the lived realities of affected communities.34 They have been critiqued for privileging institutional reform and legal accountability over more participatory, redistributive or culturally resonant approaches.35 In response, critical voices have called for the deconstruction and expansion of transitional justice to make it more context-sensitive, inclusive and emancipatory, particularly by incorporating grassroots participation and addressing structural inequality.36 Beyond these critiques, these models also tend to exclude long-standing structural harms - such as slavery, colonisation and systemic exclusion - which fall outside the temporal and political frame of ‘transition’ and, thus, are rendered invisible in dominant transitional justice practice.

The AUTJP grounds its vision of transitional justice in the diverse historical trajectories and lived realities of African societies. From the outset, the policy situates transitional justice within a broader historical continuum, acknowledging that African societies have long struggled with the aftermath of slavery, colonialism, apartheid, systematic repression and civil wars.37 It explicitly states that it constitutes an African model and mechanism not only for addressing the legacies of violent conflicts and human rights violations, but also for confronting governance deficits and developmental challenges, with a view to advancing the AU’s Agenda 2063, ‘The Africa we want’.38 This formulation departs from dominant international frameworks, such as those developed by the UN and the EU, which conceptualise transitional justice more narrowly, primarily as a response to post-conflict or post-authoritarian transitions, and seldom address historical injustices rooted in colonialism or racial domination. By contrast, the AUTJP draws inspiration from a wider historical horizon, explicitly integrating structural and intergenerational harms into its scope and African experiences drawn from African societies have been dealing with transitional processes for many decades in their quest to come to terms with the traumas of slavery, colonialism, apartheid and systematic repression.

This broader framing is reinforced by the policy’s deliberate definition of the concept of ‘transition’. Rather than tying transitional justice to a discrete temporal rupture, the AUTJP conceives transition as ‘the journey of societies with legacies of violent conflicts, systemic or gross violations of human and peoples’ rights towards a state of sustainable peace, justice and democratic order’, explicitly noting that this definition avoids ‘referencing a particular time period’.39 By not anchoring transition to a specific historical moment - such as the formal end of a conflict, regime change, or the signing of a peace agreement - this definition significantly expands the temporal and contextual scope of transitional justice. It implicitly acknowledges that the harms of slavery, colonialism, apartheid and systemic exclusion often endure well beyond the formal cessation of violence or the collapse of oppressive regimes. These harms may persist structurally and intergenerationally, shaping socio-economic disparities, political marginalisation and identity-based discrimination.

One of the clearest manifestations of this shift is the inclusion of redistributive or socio-economic justice as a core pillar of the policy. The AUTJP defines redistributive justice as encompassing development measures aimed at correcting structural inequalities, marginalisation and exclusion in order to achieve social justice and equitable, inclusive development.40 This emphasis is particularly relevant for contexts where historical injustices - such as colonial economic extraction, racialised land dispossession or apartheid-era resource allocation - have left enduring patterns of poverty and exclusion.41 The persistence of these structural harms into the present further justifies the application of transitional justice tools beyond conventional post-conflict boundaries.

Further supporting this flexible and inclusive approach is the AUTJP’s explicit commitment to context specificity. The policy makes clear that there is no one-size-fits-all model of transitional justice, and that the combination and sequencing of truth, justice, reparations, reconciliation and institutional reform measures must reflect each society’s historical experiences and contemporary needs.42 Through inclusive and participatory consultation processes, societies are encouraged to determine for themselves whether to place greater emphasis on justice, healing or reconciliation43 - a formulation that provides normative space for historical reckoning in addition to conflict resolution.

Finally, the policy’s attention to diversity management provides a concrete mechanism for addressing the ethnic, racial and cultural dimensions of both past and present harms. It acknowledges that in many African societies, violence and exclusion have been organised and perpetrated along lines of race, ethnicity, religion, language or regional affiliation.44 By including diversity management as a core dimension of transitional justice, the AUTJP recognises the group-based nature of many historical injustices and affirms the need for transitional justice processes that actively confront the identity-based foundations of structural violence.

In this regard, while the AUTJP was developed as a policy framework for AU member states, its significance extends far beyond intra-African transitions. Its provisions can be interpreted as recognising that legacies of colonialism, slavery, apartheid and systemic exclusion fall within the scope of reparable injustice. This framing situates the policy within a broader historical justice agenda that transcends the confines of post-conflict repair. Although it is not legally binding on Western states, the AUTJP’s normative strength lies in its capacity to serve as a continental standard, a mobilising tool, and a platform for coherence and legitimacy in African-led and diasporic demands for reparations. Much like the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law45 or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,46 the AUTJP operates as a soft-law instrument with political and moral authority, capable of informing civil society advocacy, shaping diplomatic positions and guiding legal argumentation across jurisdictions. While the specific modalities and scope of reparations are further developed in the policy’s substantive provisions, the broader vision it offers - grounded in historical consciousness and African normative values - opens up new possibilities for advancing demands rooted in structural redress, recognition and dignity. In that sense, the AUTJP does not merely reaffirm that reparative justice extends beyond post-conflict scenarios; it contributes to an evolving legal discourse in which Africa positions itself as a source of normative innovation in the global movement for reparations.

2.3 A transformative and decolonial vision of reparations for historical injustices in the AUTJP

At the heart of the AUTJP’s approach to reparations lies a victim-centred paradigm that redefines the relationship between the state, justice processes, and those who have suffered harm. The policy champions the active participation of victims, recognising their rights, voices and agency throughout transitional justice processes. Victims are not treated as passive recipients but as key actors in shaping the form, content and priorities of reparative measures. The AUTJP explicitly affirms that ‘victims and other members of society affected by violence have as a matter of principle the right to justice and to truth in their own country, based on mechanisms and processes in whose design they take an active part’.47 It further stresses that ‘reparation programmes should be transformative and promote equality, non-discrimination and participation of victims and other stakeholders’,48 and that transitional justice commissions must ‘provide a safe and supportive environment for victims to testify’,49 while ensuring that their participation remains central in sentencing considerations.50 This approach marks a deliberate departure from technocratic and institution-centred models of transitional justice in which, as scholars have argued and demonstrated, victims often occupy symbolic or peripheral roles.51 The AUTJP instead insists on reparations rooted in the voices, experiences and aspirations of those most affected - particularly those who have endured intersecting forms of oppression.

This normative and participatory framing renders the AUTJP particularly relevant for addressing historical injustices such as slavery, colonisation, apartheid and systemic racial subjugation - harms that generated structurally compounded vulnerabilities over generations. These injustices were not isolated events, but long-standing systems embedded in legal, economic and social orders that denied recognition, autonomy and voice.52 The AUTJP’s model affirms victims’ epistemic authority, enabling communities to define justice on their own terms. In contexts where the oppressed were excluded from shaping law, memory, and legitimacy, this shift is not symbolic; it is constitutive. It redefines who speaks, whose suffering counts, and what justice entails. By affirming victims as active agents, the AUTJP enables historically marginalised communities to reclaim narrative and moral agency in processes of redress.

Although the AUTJP does not explicitly employ the term ‘intersectionality’, it fully integrates this analytical lens. It recognises that harms are experienced differently based on identity factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, disability, socio-economic status, displacement and geography. For example, it acknowledges the need for gender-sensitive approaches and highlights the unique experiences of women, girls, the elderly, persons with disabilities and the youth.53 The policy affirms that transitional justice must address the ‘gender, generational, ethnocultural, socio-economic and development dimensions’ of peace and justice.54 In doing so, it recognises that women and girls may face sexual and reproductive violations rooted in both colonial and patriarchal systems.55 These forms of violence are not isolated or incidental; rather, it has been argued that they are historically situated within overlapping structures of domination that targeted women’s bodies as sites of control and subjugation.56 While the AUTJP does not explicitly adopt a theoretical framework, its emphasis on gender-sensitive approaches and on the differentiated experiences of marginalised groups reflects an implicit awareness that harm is shaped by intersecting systems of inequality. The policy’s multidimensional lens resonates with key insights from feminist and intersectional scholarship, which emphasise that structural violence and historical injustice do not produce uniform effects, but are mediated by overlapping axes of identity and power.57 Feminist and intersectional theorists have long argued that categories such as gender, race, class and coloniality operate in conjunction to shape how violence is experienced, remembered and repaired.58 From this perspective, redress mechanisms that ignore these interconnections risk reproducing the very exclusions they aim to overcome.59 For instance, gender-based harms under colonial regimes were frequently racialised and institutionalised, with legal frameworks systematically legitimising the subordination of colonised women.60 As a result, responses that focus narrowly on individualised violations or isolated acts of violence often fail to address the structural and cumulative nature of injustice.61 Intersectional approaches instead call for reparative frameworks that account for how harm is at once individual and collective, immediate and intergenerational, visible and invisible.62 In this light, the AUTJP’s call for gender-sensitive reparations - though not fully theorised - nonetheless supports a vision of justice that is attentive to the layered and enduring effects of historical harm. It offers a valuable normative foundation for designing reparations that address not only past violations but also the structural continuities that perpetuate gendered and racialised inequalities today. In so doing, it provides a basis for redress measures that are both historically grounded and responsive to the lived realities of those most affected.

At the same time, the policy acknowledges that marginalised communities may require collective, culturally grounded forms of redress.63 This recognition is also significant in light of critiques from post-colonial and decolonial scholarship, which have emphasised that colonial violence targeted not only individuals, but also cultural, epistemic and communal systems.64 For many communities, harm was enacted through the destruction of traditional governance, the displacement from ancestral lands and the erasure of cultural and spiritual life worlds.65 Accordingly, adequate reparation cannot be limited to financial compensation or individualised remedies; it must instead encompass the restoration of collective dignity, the affirmation of cultural sovereignty, and the revitalisation of memory, language and tradition.66 By validating culturally grounded and collective forms of redress, the AUTJP implicitly challenges dominant reparation models that prioritise standard legal or financial remedies. It affirms the need for reparative practices that are context-specific and locally meaningful, such as land restitution, recognition of traditional authority, return of sacred objects and communal memorialisation. These approaches allow communities to define justice in their own terms, drawing upon their own histories, values and epistemologies.

In this sense, the AUTJP transforms reparations from a narrow compensatory mechanism into a broader process of structural and narrative justice. Reparations are framed as political and ethical commitments to dignity and equality, aimed at repairing not only the material consequences of harm, but also the symbolic and epistemic ruptures caused by historical injustice. By addressing both the differentiated experiences of groups such as women and girls, and the collective dimensions of harm suffered by indigenous and marginalised communities, the AUTJP supports a multidimensional approach to justice - one that is attentive to identity, history and structural transformation. It thus contributes meaningfully to the broader pursuit of reparative justice across Africa and its diasporas.

Furthermore, the policy articulates a pluralistic and context-sensitive conception of reparations that encompasses material, symbolic, individual, collective and structural dimensions. While it draws from the UN Basic Principles on the Right to a Remedy, the AUTJP reframes these through an African lens that emphasises collective values, cultural legitimacy and transformation. Reparations may include financial compensation, land restitution, access to health, education and livelihoods67 - measures essential for victims of generational dispossession and colonial exploitation. Equally significant is the policy’s emphasis on symbolic and collective reparations: memorialisation, public apologies, renaming of public spaces, and preservation of memory are central to restoring dignity to silenced communities.68 These measures are particularly crucial in contexts where denial and erasure are integral components of historical injustice. Gender-sensitive reparations also feature prominently.

Moreover, the AUTJP situates reparations within a broader ecosystem of justice, interlinked with truth seeking, guarantees of non-repetition, and the preservation of collective memory. Rather than viewing violations in isolation, the policy encourages an integrated approach that acknowledges the historical depth and social embeddedness of harm. While it does not explicitly theorise structures such as slavery, colonisation, systemic racism or patriarchy, the policy implicitly recognises that the legacies of these systems continue to shape present-day inequalities. Reparations, in this view, are not limited to material compensation or symbolic gestures - they entail producing knowledge, recovering silenced histories, and transforming the conditions that made such harms possible in the first place. Truth seeking, including what may be termed structural or historical truth, is central to this process. The AUTJP calls for revealing the truth about the past, providing collective narratives, and ensuring public acknowledgment and recognition of past violations and the suffering of victims.69 In alignment with broader decolonial approaches, truth telling is framed not as backward-looking but as politically enabling, facilitating moral accountability, collective healing and the reconstitution of social trust.70 Similarly, guarantees of non-repetition are conceived not only in terms of legal or institutional reform, but also as long-term commitments to dismantling discriminatory structures and addressing the root causes of violence and exclusion.71 Collective memory, in turn, is treated as a constitutive element of justice: memorialisation, cultural reclamation, and the preservation of historical consciousness are essential for resisting denial, rehumanising victims, and fostering inclusive narratives of the past.72

These interlinked pillars - truth, non-repetition, and memory - are particularly critical when addressing historical injustices such as slavery, colonisation and systemic racial or gender-based oppression. Such injustices are not only past violations but enduring legacies that have shaped social hierarchies, institutional practices and collective imaginaries across generations. By embedding reparations within this broader justice architecture, the AUTJP offers a framework that responds not only to the harms themselves, but to the deep structural and symbolic processes that allowed them to occur and persist. In this way, the policy provides a meaningful foundation for reparations that seek not merely to compensate, but to restore dignity, reshape dominant narratives, and transform the societal conditions that have marginalised entire communities throughout history.

Through this integrated approach, the AUTJP constructs a non-fragmented, coherent and decolonial vision of reparations as an ongoing collective project - especially suited to addressing intergenerational and structural injustices. It thus serves as a foundation for pan-African and transnational reparative claims, including those linked to the legacies of the transatlantic slave trade and racial capitalism. This vision contrasts sharply with dominant Western transitional justice models, which prioritise procedural closure, individual accountability and institutional reform. The AUTJP, rooted in African philosophies such as ubuntu, emphasises relational repair, community memory and reintegration of victims into moral communities. It recognises that justice can be delivered not only by formal institutions but through indigenous, customary and local mechanisms - truth-telling ceremonies, rites of atonement, land-based practices - which have historically fostered reconciliation and social cohesion. Such mechanisms are especially vital for communities marginalised by state institutions. By recognising their legitimacy, the AUTJP challenges colonial legal hierarchies and reclaims African knowledge systems. This community-based orientation is central to its decolonial ethos, enabling the restoration of symbolic and moral order and affirming the legitimacy of non-Western justice traditions.

Finally, the AUTJP holds transnational relevance. Its emphasis on historical truth, cultural specificity and reparative justice provides diaspora-led movements - from the Caribbean to the Americas - with a normative African reference point. In a global context where Western legal frameworks often fail to accommodate or validate historical justice claims, the AUTJP offers a solidaristic and dignified language of redress, reconnecting Africa and its diasporas through shared struggles for truth, memory and reparation.

3.1 Actors and arenas of mobilisation: who can activate the AUTJP?

The AUTJP outlines a deliberately inclusive and multi-level framework for activation. This framework is rooted in the understanding that transitional justice cannot succeed unless it is mobilised strategically by a range of actors - from formal state institutions to affected communities - across multiple arenas. Importantly, the AUTJP is not a self-executing instrument; its transformative potential, particularly with regard to reparations for historical injustices, depends on its activation through legal, political and civic processes. As such, understanding who can activate the AUTJP, and how, is critical to assessing the prospects and limitations of using it as a strategic lever to advance redress for harms such as slavery, colonisation and systemic exclusion.

At the national level, member states of the AU bear primary responsibility for the implementation of the AUTJP. The policy unequivocally affirms that ‘member states shall have the primary responsibility with respect to pursuing transitional justice processes’,73 and further stipulates that ‘they bear the responsibility for removing political and social impediments to the effective pursuit of transitional justice processes’.74 This responsibility is not limited to policy design or legal enactments; it extends to creating the political and civic conditions necessary for transitional justice to take root. Specifically, the AUTJP underscores the duty of states to ‘guarantee the space for debate and advocacy on transitional justice and [to] mobilise the support of all sections of society across political lines’.75 This language affirms that transitional justice is not merely a technical endeavour, but a deeply political and participatory process that must be embedded in democratic dialogue and inclusive governance.

In the context of reparations for historical injustices - such as those stemming from slavery, colonisation, apartheid or systemic racial and gender-based exclusion - this national role is decisive. Addressing such legacies requires more than temporary measures; it demands a long-term commitment to transforming the structures, narratives and institutions that have perpetuated inequality and denied recognition to victims and affected communities.76 The AUTJP thus calls upon member states to adopt strategies that facilitate national dialogue on transitional justice in an open and inclusive manner. This includes fostering broad-based conversations on historical harm, designing consultative mechanisms with victims and civil society, and creating institutional pathways for acknowledgment, accountability and redress.

Moreover, member states are encouraged to domesticate the AUTJP’s provisions through national legislation and to embed its core principles within permanent national institutions.77 This domestication process is crucial to ensuring that transitional justice is not episodic or externally driven, but rather integrated into national legal frameworks, policy infrastructures and democratic practice. By internalising the AUTJP’s guidelines within enduring governance structures, states can ensure the sustainability and legitimacy of transitional justice initiatives over time. In effect, the AUTJP places a substantial burden of leadership and implementation on AU member states. They are not only the primary duty bearers but also the central architects of context-specific transitional justice responses. Their actions - or inaction - will ultimately determine whether the policy’s transformative promise, particularly in relation to reparations for historical injustices, is realised or deferred.

Since the adoption of the AUTJP in 2019, the degree of national implementation across member states has been variable. While the policy places primary responsibility on states to pursue transitional justice processes, including reparations for historical and structural injustices, the extent to which this responsibility has translated into action has depended on diverse political, institutional and socio-historical contexts. To date, there appears to be no publicly available information indicating that states have explicitly invoked the AUTJP in the context of reparations for historical injustices. Nonetheless, some countries have taken noteworthy steps to align national policies and institutions with the AUTJP’s principles.78 These early efforts, though uneven, signal the potential for the AUTJP to serve as a continental framework capable of guiding both the redress of past harms and the prevention of future harms.

Yet national efforts alone are insufficient, particularly where those very states are implicated in or continue to benefit from the legacies of historical injustices. This is where continental actors play a crucial role in providing strategic leadership, coordination and institutional support. The AUTJP recognises that ‘the implementation of this AUTJP will not be successful without the overall strategic political leadership of the AU at the continental level’.79 Among the key continental institutions, the AU Commission is specifically tasked with following up and evaluating transitional processes, coordinating implementation, and submitting annual reports on transitional processes across Africa.80 The Peace and Security Council, alongside other AU organs, provides leadership in policy implementation and has historically played a role in adopting transitional justice frameworks, as evidenced by its adoption of the AU High-Level Panel on Darfur report.81 The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Court) and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Commission) are identified as key institutions providing leadership in implementation, working within the broader framework of African human rights instruments.82 Additional continental actors include the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (African Children’s Committee); the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM); the Economic, Social and Cultural Council; the AU Board on Corruption; and the Pan-African Parliament, all collaborating with continental bodies such as the African Development Bank and the African Capacity Building Foundation to ensure comprehensive continental support for transitional justice processes.83

At the regional level, the AUTJP identifies regional economic communities (RECs) as key actors that should encourage national transitional processes and help address regional and trans-boundary dimensions of conflicts or violent repression.84 RECs are positioned to provide diplomatic and resource support to member states, promote normalisation of relationships between affected neighbouring countries, and create common understanding on transitional processes.85 The policy also calls for RECs to designate mechanisms that encourage transitional justice implementation and ensure harmonisation between regional and continental policy instruments.86 Their regional proximity and political familiarity can create entry points for constructive engagement, although their capacity and willingness to prioritise transitional justice remain uneven.

In parallel, the policy places strong emphasis on non-state actors - civil society organisations, victims’ associations, faith-based groups, traditional leaders and the media - as central drivers of transitional justice. It calls upon these actors to ‘campaign for and facilitate the emergence of the necessary public national conversation and debate’.87 In the specific context of historical injustices, their role is indispensable. These actors are often the custodians of memory, the initiators of claims for redress, and the translators of abstract policy language into locally meaningful forms. Victims and affected communities are not only entitled to participate in transitional justice processes - they are, as the AUTJP affirms, entitled to shape the very mechanisms through which justice is defined and pursued.88 The policy specifically recognises that victims and other affected members of society have ‘the right to justice and to truth in their own country, based on mechanisms and processes in whose design they take an active part,’ while faith-based and traditional leaders should offer ‘avenues for healing, reconciliation and local justice’ as part of the transitional process.89

The policy also acknowledges the supportive role of international actors. While the AUTJP insists on African ownership and the primacy of regional frameworks,90 it recognises that international organisations and development partners can contribute through technical, financial and capacity-building support.91 This contribution, however, must be aligned with the principles and priorities articulated in the AUTJP and should not substitute for domestic or regional leadership.

Activation can occur across diverse arenas. The AUTJP identifies formal mechanisms such as peace negotiations (which should incorporate TJ considerations ‘from the outset’), judicial processes through national and traditional courts, and legislative frameworks through enabling legislation.92 The policy also emphasises informal pathways including community participation through ‘inclusive consultative processes’, public education programmes, and traditional justice practices adapted for community-level implementation.93 In the context of historical injustices, the latter are particularly important: grassroots initiatives, memory work and cultural reclamation often precede or outlast formal processes and are essential to any meaningful reparative justice.94

A few key insights emerge from the AUTJP’s activation framework. First, it envisions mobilisation as occurring simultaneously at the national, regional and continental levels, with coordinated and mutually reinforcing actions. Second, it affirms that transitional justice must combine top-down institutional strategies with bottom-up participation, particularly from those most affected. Third, it permits activation not only after conflict or repression, but also during ongoing crises or as a preventive tool in situations of governance failure. Fourth, it integrates intergenerational mechanisms - such as memorialisation and education - ensuring that justice for historical injustices remains a living, evolving process.

In sum, the AUTJP outlines a broad and flexible framework for activation. Its mobilisation depends not only on formal authority, but also on strategic agency, political opportunity, and the ability to bridge normative commitments with lived experiences of harm. In this complex landscape, the African Commission stands out as a particularly strategic actor - one capable of interpreting, promoting and helping to operationalise the AUTJP’s reparative vision in ways that are both grounded in regional human rights law and responsive to historical claims for justice.

3.2 From norms to action: how the AUTJP can be mobilised at the regional level

There are several ways in which the AUTJP can be mobilised at the regional level. However, due to limitations of space and the need to maintain focus, this part does not attempt an exhaustive or systematically selected inventory. Instead, it highlights four key avenues of mobilisation that, in our view, represent some of the most strategic and impactful. These include (i) education, training and the diffusion of norms; (ii) the use of the AUTJP as a tool for advocacy and political mobilisation at both domestic and international levels; (iii) the elaboration of a Common African Position on specific transitional justice themes, grounded in the AUTJP’s language and principles; and (iv) the proactive role of the African Commission.

3.3 Structural and political challenges to mobilisation

Despite the normative clarity and transformative ambition of AUTJP, its strategic mobilisation as a framework for reparative justice can encounter several entrenched structural and political obstacles. While the policy offers a coherent vision grounded in historical redress, participation and structural transformation, its practical impact is conditioned by the political and institutional contexts in which it must operate. Mobilising the AUTJP is not simply a matter of translating text into action; it requires confronting a complex web of resistance, fragmentation and asymmetry that shapes the landscape of transitional and reparative justice in Africa and beyond. Although a comprehensive mapping of all possible barriers lies beyond the scope of this part, the analysis will focus on three particularly salient and interrelated challenges. These are (i) political will and elite resistance to structural redress; (ii) institutional fragmentation and implementation gaps; and (iii) narrative contestation and memory politics.