The chairman of the CARICOM Reparations Commission says the Caribbean and Africa Union have forged an enduring alliance, as Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama calls for historical truth, justice and economic emancipation.

By: Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

KINGSTON, Jamaica — Professor Sir Hilary Beckles has declared that CARICOM and Africa will “forever speak with one voice on reparations”, presenting the growing alliance between the Caribbean and the African continent as a permanent political commitment rather than a temporary diplomatic arrangement.

Sir Hilary made the powerful declaration on Monday, August 3, during a Special High-Level Reparation Dialogue with Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama at The University of the West Indies Regional Headquarters in Jamaica.

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

The event was hosted by The UWI in collaboration with the Office of the Prime Minister of Jamaica during President Mahama’s official visit to the island.

The dialogue brought together two of the most influential figures in the international reparations movement. Sir Hilary serves as Vice-Chancellor of The UWI and chairman of the CARICOM Reparations Commission, while President Mahama has emerged as a leading voice in Africa’s campaign for reparatory justice.

Advertisement

Their appearance together carried deep historical symbolism. The Atlantic Ocean, once used to forcibly separate millions of Africans from their families, cultures and homelands, is increasingly becoming a bridge for coordinated political action between Africa and its Caribbean diaspora.

“CARICOM and Africa will forever speak with one voice on reparations,” declares Sir Hilary Beckles.#CARICOM #Jamaica #Ghana #Reparations pic.twitter.com/Ih62LH9A5e

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) August 4, 2026

Sir Hilary’s message was that the days of Africa and the Caribbean approaching reparatory justice as separate constituencies are over. CARICOM and the African Union are now aligning their diplomacy, legal research, public education and international advocacy around a shared demand for acknowledgment, justice and repair.

A growing international force

That unified approach has already produced significant diplomatic progress.

The United Nations General Assembly recently adopted a landmark resolution recognising the trafficking and enslavement of Africans as one of the gravest crimes against humanity because of its scale, duration, systematic nature, brutality and continuing consequences.

The resolution, championed by President Mahama, received the support of 123 countries. Every CARICOM member state voted in favour.

Advertisement

It also called for greater international support for reparatory justice, the return of stolen African cultural objects, historical research, education and memorialisation.

The significance of Sir Hilary’s latest declaration is therefore clear: Caribbean nations will no longer be left to pursue former colonial powers alone. They now stand alongside the African continent, speaking through a coordinated international coalition with increasing influence at the United Nations and other global institutions.

Mahama challenges attempts to minimise slavery

During the UWI dialogue, President Mahama also confronted arguments that the involvement of some Africans in the transatlantic slave trade somehow weakens the case for reparations.

He maintained that the participation of African intermediaries could not erase the systematic nature of the wider enterprise.

Advertisement

The transatlantic trade was supported by laws, insurance arrangements, auctions, banks, shipping companies and commercial networks that reduced African men, women and children to cargo.

The involvement of individuals within Africa does not change the scale of the crime or remove responsibility from the governments, monarchies, companies and institutions that organised, expanded and profited from it over several centuries.

President Mahama also called for the history of slavery and colonialism to be taught more honestly.

He said generations of African and Caribbean children had been taught versions of history that celebrated European abolitionists while failing to explain fully the violence, suffering and economic machinery behind the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans.

A truthful understanding of that history, he argued, is necessary to overcome the continuing psychological effects of slavery and colonialism and to enable African people to determine their own future.

From political independence to economic emancipation

President Mahama further connected reparatory justice with the present-day economic circumstances of Africa and the Caribbean.

He said that while earlier generations successfully fought for political liberation and national independence, the struggle facing the present generation is one of economic emancipation.

Advertisement

That requires deeper cooperation between African and Caribbean states in trade, education, investment, culture, transportation and development, turning shared history and political solidarity into practical improvements in the lives of their people.

This reflects the wider Africa–CARICOM position that reparations cannot be reduced to a single payment or symbolic apology.

The developing agenda includes formal acknowledgment, financial compensation, debt relief, the return of cultural property and long-term programmes addressing the structural damage caused by slavery and colonial extraction.

The Kingston dialogue therefore represented more than another discussion about the past. It signalled that reparations are becoming a coordinated programme of international diplomacy, historical truth-telling, legal action and economic reconstruction.

Advertisement

Sir Hilary’s message was unequivocal: Africa and the Caribbean will not allow the demand for justice to be fragmented, postponed indefinitely or dismissed as an issue belonging only to history.

Separated by force centuries ago, Africa and its Caribbean descendants are now reuniting around a common political purpose and, on reparations, they intend to speak with one voice.

“We Will Fight for Reparations — But We Will Not Wait”: Dr Umar Johnson Calls for Global Black Organisation in Brixton

By: Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

The Pan-African speaker used his keynote address at Brixton’s Afrikan Reparations Day rally to urge African-descended communities to organise across borders, finance their own institutions and pursue liberation without waiting for governments to deliver justice.

“We will fight for reparations — but we will not wait.”

It was the declaration that defined Dr Umar Johnson’s keynote address in Brixton: reparations must continue to be pursued, but the global African diaspora cannot postpone the work of building its own power while waiting for former colonial and slaveholding nations to respond.

Advertisement

Speaking at the Afrikan Reparations Day March and Rally in Windrush Square, referred to by organisers as Afrikan Pioneer Square, on Saturday, 1 August, Johnson delivered a forceful call for Black communities across Europe, the Caribbean, Africa and the Americas to move beyond speeches, social-media posts and symbolic solidarity.

His central argument was that the campaign for reparatory justice must be accompanied by organisation, cooperation and collective investment.

“Brothers and sisters of England, brothers and sisters of Europe, we have to finance our liberation,” he told the gathering.

“We will fight for reparations — but we will not wait.”

Dr Umar Johnson delivers a powerful message in Brixton, calling for Black unity, global organisation and investment in our own liberation.

Watch the keynote address. #UmarJohnson #Reparations #Brixton

video: by J.… pic.twitter.com/WkswVJ2Yxt

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) August 3, 2026

Video by Jacqueline Mckenzie

“Yes, we’re fighting for reparations, but we cannot wait to get them. We will continue to fight for reparations — hard — but we will not wait.”

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

Johnson called for a more organised relationship between African-descended communities around the world, including Black communities in Europe, Canada, the United States, Mexico, Brazil and the Caribbean.

He urged activists to begin holding conferences that would connect those communities and allow them to develop a common strategy.

“Most of you here, just like me, we are the children of the transatlantic slave trade,” he said.

“We are the descendants of the Maafa. We are the ones who have inherited the pain, the legacy, the prophecy and the destiny of our ancestors.”

Advertisement

His message was that a shared history must become the foundation for coordinated action.

“Let us do the work of organisation,” Johnson said. “Let us do the work of reparations. Let us do the work of liberation.”

The address came at a significant moment for the international reparations movement. Johnson referred to the African Union’s declaration of a decade devoted to justice and reparations for Africans and people of African descent.

He also highlighted Ghana’s role in securing a landmark United Nations General Assembly resolution in March 2026.

Advertisement

The resolution described the trafficking and racialised chattel enslavement of Africans as the “gravest crime against humanity”. It was adopted with 123 countries voting in favour, three voting against and 52 abstaining.

“We have to finance our liberation”

While Johnson supported demands for reparations from governments and institutions that benefited from slavery and colonialism, he challenged Black communities not to make their progress entirely dependent on those demands being met.

“Let’s use our money now,” he said. “Let’s use our resources now. Let’s use our time now. Let’s use our intelligence now.”

His argument effectively shifted part of the responsibility back onto the diaspora: what institutions could be built, what organisations could be strengthened and what political power could be developed using the resources already available?

Johnson warned that while campaigners waited, external powers were continuing to consolidate their influence across Africa and the Caribbean.

Advertisement

“We will fight for reparations, but we will not wait,” he repeated.

The speech also contained a direct criticism of activism that never moves beyond public commentary.

“We just can’t tweet about it,” Johnson said. “We just can’t Facebook about it. We just can’t Instagram about it. We just can’t TikTok about it.”

“We’ve got to organise about it. We have to plan about it. We have to meet about it. We have to finance it.”

A challenge directed inwards

Some of the most striking passages were not directed at governments, former colonial powers or white institutions. They were directed at divisions within Black political movements themselves.

Johnson appealed for greater compassion, humility and forgiveness between people working towards the same broad objectives.

“Some of us are so filled with hate for the white man that we don’t have any love for the Black man,” he said.

“What good is a Negro who hates his enemy and also hates his brethren?”

He continued:

“If you cannot forgive, you are not a revolutionary. You’ve got to be able to overlook the faults of your brother and of your sister.”

Johnson called on those present to see the African diaspora as a single body, arguing that homelessness, hunger and suffering experienced by one section of the community should be understood as a collective concern.

Advertisement

“If I hurt, you hurt,” he said. “If you hurt, I hurt. If you’re hungry, I’m hungry. If you’re homeless, I’m homeless.”

That appeal to compassion sat alongside some of the speech’s more confrontational language, illustrating the mixture of solidarity, nationalism and provocation for which Johnson has become known.

“Racism is not the biggest problem”

Johnson also made one of the most challenging statements of the address when he told the audience:

“Racism is not the biggest problem. It only looks like it’s the biggest problem because we are not united.”

In context, he appeared not to be denying the existence or effects of racism, but arguing that division leaves Black communities less able to confront it.

“This world cannot stop a united African people,” he said. “This world cannot stop a serious African people. This world cannot stop a dedicated African people.”

It was an attempt to move the focus from what oppressive systems were doing to Black people towards what Black communities were prepared to build and defend collectively.

Controversial remarks about ADHD

The speech was not without controversy.

During an earlier passage, Johnson urged Black parents to keep their children away from medications including Ritalin and Adderall. He then claimed:

“Your son don’t have ADHD. He just ain’t got no daddy at home.”

The sweeping claim is not supported by established medical understanding of ADHD, which recognises it as a condition affecting how the brain functions.

Advertisement

Medication is neither necessary nor appropriate for every child, but treatment decisions should be made according to the child’s individual circumstances and in consultation with qualified medical professionals.

Johnson’s remarks are therefore likely to concern parents, clinicians and advocates who have campaigned for better recognition of ADHD within Black communities.

From compassion to militant rhetoric

Towards the end of the address, Johnson invoked the legacy of Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad, presenting her as an example of determination in the face of fear and oppression.

His closing language then became markedly more militant.

“I believe the next war will be a war to free Africa,” he said.

He told the gathering that he believed Black people would one day be called upon to reclaim Africa and concluded with the Pan-African declaration:

“One God, one aim, one destiny.”

Johnson also paid tribute to the people responsible for organising the Brixton gathering, reminding the audience that events lasting several hours could require months of planning, sacrifice and largely unseen work.

A demand — and a challenge

Johnson’s Brixton speech moved between a number of different messages: reparations and self-reliance, international solidarity and internal forgiveness, compassion between Black people and militant warnings about Africa’s future.

Not every statement will attract agreement. Some, particularly his comments about ADHD and medication, require firm scrutiny. Others will provoke debate about where Pan-African solidarity ends and polarising rhetoric begins.

But the central political challenge he placed before the gathering was unmistakable.

Reparations, in Johnson’s argument, must remain an international demand — but liberation cannot be placed on hold until reparations arrive.

“Let us do the work of organisation. Let us do the work of reparations. Let us do the work of liberation.” 

Black communities, he said, must organise, cooperate and invest in themselves now.

By: Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

Britain’s first Black woman MP has had the Labour whip restored following a second suspension. Her return closes another turbulent chapter in her relationship with the party, while restoring one of Parliament’s most persistent voices for victims of the Home Office Windrush scandal.

Diane Abbott has been formally readmitted to the Labour Party and has had the Labour whip restored in the House of Commons, ending more than a year in which the veteran Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP sat as an independent.

Labour said the decision followed a disciplinary process conducted under party rules and approved by its independent review board.

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

Abbott said she had received a formal warning over a previous social-media post in which she inadvertently referred to the Israel Defence Forces as the “Jewish Defence Force”. She acknowledged that the wording conflated the actions of the state of Israel with the Jewish community, apologised for the hurt caused and reaffirmed that she remained a lifelong opponent of racism in all its forms.

Abbott’s return is significant not simply because of her longevity, but because of her unique place in British political history.

First elected in 1987, she became the first Black woman to sit in the House of Commons. Following her re-election at the 2024 general election, she became Mother of the House as its longest continuously serving woman MP.

Advertisement

Her recent relationship with Labour, however, has been marked by suspension, internal investigations, public disagreements and uncertainty over whether her parliamentary career would be allowed to continue under the party’s banner.

The first suspension came in April 2023 after Abbott wrote a letter to The Observer which distinguished between the racism experienced by Black people and the prejudice experienced by Jewish, Irish and Traveller communities. The comments were widely condemned. Abbott withdrew the letter and apologised, saying that racism took many forms and that Jewish people, Irish people and Travellers had suffered its effects.

After a lengthy disciplinary process, a formal warning and antisemitism-awareness training, the whip was restored in May 2024. That did not immediately end the controversy. A public dispute followed over whether Abbott would be permitted to stand as Labour’s candidate at the approaching general election. She was eventually confirmed as the party’s candidate and was re-elected to Parliament for a tenth term. That period also coincided with one of the most disturbing episodes of Abbott’s public life.

Advertisement

When Parliament debated alleged racist and violent remarks made about her by Conservative donor Frank Hester, Abbott repeatedly stood in the Commons seeking to speak but was not called by the Speaker.

The spectacle of Britain’s first Black woman MP being discussed across the chamber while being unable to speak for herself deepened public concern about the way she was being treated.

In July 2025, Abbott was suspended for a second time after a BBC interview in which she maintained that there was a distinction between racism based upon visible skin colour and other forms of racism. Labour again removed the whip, leaving Abbott to sit as an independent until this week’s decision.

A steadfast voice for Windrush victims

For members and descendants of the Windrush generation, Abbott’s record is particularly important. When the Windrush scandal erupted nationally in 2018, Abbott was serving as Shadow Home Secretary.

She used that position to challenge the Home Office over wrongful detention, deportation, removal targets, the denial of employment, benefits and healthcare, the destruction of people’s livelihoods and the wider consequences of the government’s hostile-environment policies.

Advertisement

Abbott argued that the scandal could not be separated from policies introduced while Theresa May was Home Secretary and called on the government to establish how many people had been detained, deported or prevented from returning to Britain.

She demanded that compensation address the real and often catastrophic losses suffered by victims. That included lost employment, benefits, pensions, access to healthcare and public services, as well as the trauma, pain and suffering caused by the Home Office.

Abbott also called for victims to be given proper access to legal assistance, recognising that people who had already been failed by the immigration system could not reasonably be expected to challenge that same system without support. She repeatedly made clear that Windrush compensation was not charity.

It was redress owed to people who were legally entitled to live in Britain, but whose rights, identity and status had been denied or questioned by the state.

Abbott also warned that the scandal extended beyond the Caribbean. People from other Commonwealth countries had been affected by the same legislation, policies and Home Office practices.

As the years passed and the immediate political attention surrounding the scandal began to fade, Abbott continued raising concerns about delays, inadequate awards, restrictive evidential requirements and the low number of victims receiving compensation.

Advertisement

She challenged the failure to reach people who had become understandably fearful of the Home Office and repeatedly drew attention to the emotional devastation suffered by a generation who had always understood themselves to be British.

Abbott’s connection to the Windrush generation is also personal. Her parents travelled to Britain from Jamaica during the post-war period, with her mother working as a nurse and her father as a welder.

Her interventions have therefore been informed not only by her political responsibilities, but by a direct understanding of the contribution made by Caribbean families to Britain’s public services, economy and communities.

This is not the record of a politician who discovered Windrush only after it became politically fashionable. 

It is a sustained record of challenging the Home Office, questioning ministers, confronting the hostile environment and insisting that victims must be treated as people whose rights were violated, rather than as immigration cases seeking special treatment.

In 2014 Abbot forewarned that policies being enshrined in the 2014 immigration act were hostile to Caribbean and Commonwealth migrants who had long-settled in the UK over decades and the descendants, but those warning were ignored.

The whole record must be remembered

Abbott broke one of Parliament’s most imposing racial barriers. She survived years of hostility, repeated personal attacks and an often deeply strained relationship with her own party.

Throughout that turmoil, her position on Windrush remained remarkably consistent: the victims were legally entitled to be here, the British state had wronged them, compensation was not charity and justice could not be delivered through apologies alone.

Her journey with Labour has taken her from the front bench to suspension, from reinstatement to uncertainty over her candidacy, from re-election and elevation as Mother of the House to another suspension — and now, once again, to readmission.

Advertisement

Share

Andy Burnham has officially become the United Kingdom's new Prime Minister after meeting King Charles III at Buckingham Palace, where the King invited him to form a new government following the resignation of Sir Keir Starmer.

Burnham now becomes the seventh UK Prime Minister in just 10 years, highlighting a decade of political instability that has left many voters questioning whether Westminster can provide the long-term leadership the country needs.

The former Mayor of Greater Manchester enters Downing Street with a reputation for championing regional investment, social justice and greater devolution. However, he inherits a nation facing significant economic and social challenges that have tested successive governments.

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

A Nation Searching for Stability

Since the Brexit referendum in 2016, Britain has seen an unprecedented turnover of political leaders. Frequent changes at the top have fuelled public frustration and uncertainty, with many people feeling that political infighting has distracted from addressing the country's most pressing issues.

For many voters, the question is no longer simply who occupies Number 10, but whether any government can restore confidence in Britain's economy, public services and political institutions.

The Economy Comes First

Burnham's immediate priority will be strengthening the UK economy while managing increasing pressure on the nation's finances.

Among the major challenges facing his government are:

• Sluggish economic growth.

• High levels of public borrowing.

• Pressure on the NHS and other public services.

• A shortage of affordable housing.

• Encouraging business investment.

• Reducing regional inequality.

Burnham has long argued that more investment should be directed outside London and the South East, giving cities and regions greater control over their own economic futures.

Advertisement

The Cost of Living Remains a Major Concern

While inflation has eased from its recent peaks, many households continue to struggle with the rising cost of everyday life.

Families across the country continue to face:

• Higher grocery bills.

• Rising rents and mortgage costs.

• Increasing council tax and other local charges.

• Expensive energy bills.

• Wages that many believe have not kept pace with living costs.

Many Britons will judge the new Prime Minister not by political rhetoric, but by whether their financial situation improves over the coming months and years.

Windrush Community Looking for Action

Burnham also inherits unfinished business concerning the Windrush generation and their descendants.

Although governments have acknowledged the Windrush scandal and introduced compensation and documentation schemes, many campaigners argue that justice remains incomplete. Compensation has been criticised as being too slow, while unresolved nationality and citizenship issues continue to affect some descendants who believe they have been disadvantaged by historic legislative unfairness.

The Caribbean community will be watching closely to see whether Burnham's government takes meaningful action to resolve these long-standing concerns and rebuild trust with those affected. Last week, an open letter signed by lawyers and campaigners was addressed to Andy Burnham setting out concerns over long-standing issues around the redress schemes setup up by government following the Windrush scandal.

Advertisement

Will Burnham Govern for the People?

Perhaps the most important question surrounding Britain's newest Prime Minister is whether he can remain true to the image that made him popular with many voters.

As Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham built a reputation for speaking out on behalf of local communities, challenging central government when necessary and advocating for working people.

Now, as Prime Minister, he faces a very different challenge.

Will he continue to champion ordinary families struggling with rising taxes, housing costs and declining living standards, or will the realities of Westminster politics, Whitehall bureaucracy and powerful economic interests limit how much change he can deliver?

History has shown that many leaders enter Downing Street promising reform, only to discover that governing often requires balancing competing interests and difficult compromises.

Advertisement

A Defining Test

Andy Burnham begins his premiership at a critical moment for the United Kingdom.

The economy remains fragile, the cost of living continues to place pressure on millions of households, public services face growing demand, and many communities, including the Windrush generation and their families—are still waiting for lasting solutions.

After ten years and seven prime ministers, the British public is looking for more than another change of leadership. They are looking for stability, accountability and genuine progress.

Whether Andy Burnham becomes the Prime Minister who delivers that change, or simply another chapter in Britain's recent political turbulence, will be determined not by his first speech outside Number 10, but by the decisions his government makes in the months and years ahead.

Two Jamaican nationals deported from the United States to St Kitts and Nevis under controversial third-country national agreement have reportedly decided to remain in the country.

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

Jamaica’s Ministry of National Security confirmed that checks were conducted after it learned that two of its citizens had been sent to St Kitts and Nevis by the United States.

Advertisement

According to a report by Television Jamaica, the ministry was subsequently advised that both individuals had chosen to remain in the twin-island Federation.

The development is likely to intensify scrutiny of the agreement between the Government of St Kitts and Nevis and the United States, particularly over assurances that the Federation would serve only as a temporary destination for people whom Washington is seeking to remove.

The two Jamaicans were reportedly among the first group of third-country nationals transferred to St Kitts and Nevis under the arrangement. A Belizean national was also reported to have been included in that group.

Advertisement

The decision by the Jamaicans to remain in St. Kitts and Nevis now raises several unanswered questions, including the immigration status under which they are being allowed to stay, whether they have applied for asylum or another form of residence as Caricom nationals, and who will bear responsibility for their accommodation and longer-term support.

It also raises a wider question about whether people brought into the Federation under the agreement can simply choose not to return to their country of nationality.

The St Kitts and Nevis Government has previously sought to reassure the public that persons accepted under the programme would be carefully screened and would not include individuals with criminal records. However, the full memorandum governing the arrangement has not been made public.

Advertisement

Prime Minister Dr Terrance Drew’s administration has faced growing calls to disclose the agreement and explain what financial, diplomatic or immigration commitments the Federation has assumed.

The latest revelation suggests that the programme may involve more than temporarily receiving deportees while arrangements are made for their onward travel.

If individuals transferred to St Kitts and Nevis can seek permission to remain, the agreement could result in the Federation becoming a permanent destination for some people whom the United States cannot—or will not—return directly to their home countries.

That possibility places renewed pressure on the Government to tell the public precisely what it has agreed to, what rights are available to the deportees after arrival, and what limits, if any, have been placed on the number of people who could ultimately remain in the Federation.

Advertisement

Neither the identities of the two Jamaicans nor the precise basis on which they intend to stay has been publicly disclosed.

The United States has pursued similar third-country arrangements across the Caribbean, Latin America and elsewhere as part of the Trump administration’s intensified deportation programme.

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

The Government has quietly changed the rules of the Windrush Compensation Scheme, replacing its former oversight figure,  "The Independent Person" with Windrush Commissioner Reverend Clive Foster.

The amendment, published on 10 July, states that Foster will now “assure delivery” of the Scheme and may report to the Home Secretary and ministers across the devolved nations of UK.

However, the change gives him no power to decide on claims, overturn Home Office refusals or increase compensation awards. The Home Office, the department responsible for the Windrush scandal, continues to control the assessment and payment of claims.

Advertisement

Previously, the rules required the Home Secretary to appoint an “Independent Person” to oversee the Scheme. That governance role has now been transferred to the Windrush Commissioner under a memorandum of understanding with the Home Office. The memorandum was produced following a JamRadio investigation into the Commissioner’s independence and the absence of any publicly available document setting out his powers, responsibilities and relationship with the department.

Advertisement

The memorandum describes Foster as an independent advocate for victims and allows him to scrutinise the Scheme, request information and make recommendations. But it expressly states that it is not legally binding and creates no legal obligations.

The change comes amid continuing criticism of the Home Office’s administration of compensation claims and renewed demands for the Scheme to be transferred to an independent body.

Although Foster replaces the Independent Person responsible for general oversight, separate independent reviewers will continue to consider Tier 2 challenges against individual compensation decisions.

Those reviewers can recommend that a decision be changed, but the Home Office retains the final say. If the department rejects a recommendation, it is only required to provide written reasons.

Advertisement

The Commissioner similarly cannot order the Home Office to compensate a claimant or correct a decision he considers unfair.

His appointment may provide victims with a stronger public voice and increase scrutiny of how the Scheme operates. But it does not remove any decision-making authority from the Home Office.

The Government has changed who watches the Windrush Compensation Scheme. It has not changed who controls it.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

CASTRIES, Saint Lucia: Barbados Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley has sharply rejected remarks by former British Home Secretary Suella Braverman suggesting that former colonies should pay Britain for the “investment, effort and contribution” made during the colonial period.

Mottley was responding to a question during the closing press conference of the 51st Regular Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM in Saint Lucia.

Although Mottley did not call Braverman by name during her answer, the question followed the British politician’s intervention in the increasingly heated debate over Caribbean demands for reparatory justice.

In 2026, I cannot believe we are being asked to respond to the suggestion that the descendants of the enslaved should pay for the machinery that oppressed them.

The Caribbean does not owe Britain for slavery, for colonial extraction, or for laws that treated African people as… pic.twitter.com/xgLKwXrZzo

— Mia Amor Mottley (@miaamormottley) July 9, 2026

“I’m not sure that you want me to reply to things that really are asinine,” Mottley began.

She then addressed the substance of Braverman’s argument directly.

“And certainly the notion that we should pay the United Kingdom for oppressing us, for enslaving us and for treating us as chattel.”

Advertisement

What Braverman said

Braverman, who served as Home Secretary under former prime ministers Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak before later joining Reform UK, made the remarks after Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy highlighted Jamaica’s plan to take its reparations case directly to King Charles III.

The Jamaican government intends to petition the King on 6 September and ask him to refer important legal questions concerning slavery and reparations to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Responding on social media, Braverman acknowledged that slavery was “abhorrent” but argued that present-day British citizens should not be required to pay for actions committed centuries ago.

She went further, suggesting that the financial argument should be turned against Britain’s former colonies.

“If the government is seriously thinking about this, then former colonies should pay the British back for the considerable investment, effort and contribution that this country made, which laid the foundations for many flourishing democracies today,” Braverman wrote in her original statement.

Advertisement

The remarks presented British colonialism as an investment for which former colonies should now be grateful, largely setting aside the wealth extracted through slavery, forced labour, land dispossession and centuries of unequal colonial trade.

“We are not asking for charity”

Mottley rejected that reading of history.

She pointed to the 1661 Barbados Slave Code, one of the earliest comprehensive legal frameworks governing racial slavery in the English Caribbean. The code became a model for other slave laws across Britain’s colonies and established the treatment of enslaved Africans as property.

Mottley also referenced France’s Code Noir, which similarly regulated slavery in French colonies and legally classified enslaved people as property. France’s National Assembly only voted to formally repeal the centuries-old code in May 2026.

“We’re not asking for charity,” Mottley said. “We’re asking to be able to ensure that justice can be done.”

She reminded those listening that when slavery was abolished across much of the British Empire, the British Parliament accepted that compensation was necessary. However, the money did not go to those who had been enslaved.

Britain borrowed £20 million to compensate slave owners for the loss of what the law had regarded as their “property”. The enslaved received nothing and were instead subjected to a further period of forced labour under the apprenticeship system.

Advertisement

“In 1834, the British Parliament did not need to be persuaded of that fact with respect to the loss of property, because we were chattel, and the compensation of the enslavers of £20 million,” Mottley said.

She advised British politicians commenting on the matter to first acquaint themselves with the historical record.

“I would like to advise that those who have not yet read sufficiently to understand the history do so before making comments that really do not reflect well on them.”

Caribbean will not be used as a political prop

Mottley placed the exchange within a broader international movement for reparatory justice.

She pointed to the growing cooperation between CARICOM and the African Union, the recent reparations conference in Accra, Ghana, the United Nations resolution on the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans, comments from Pope Leo XIV and French President Emmanuel Macron, and previous remarks by King Charles that reparations had become a conversation whose time had come.

Advertisement

Her response also appeared aimed at Reform UK’s wider attempt to turn reparations into an immigration issue.

In April, Reform UK proposed blocking visa applications from countries formally seeking slavery reparations from Britain. The proposal was condemned by the CARICOM Reparations Commission as an attempt to punish countries and people seeking justice. Reuters reported that the proposed restrictions could affect countries including Jamaica and Ghana.

Mottley suggested that attacks on the Caribbean’s reparations campaign were being used to serve political interests inside Britain.

“I have no doubt that there are British parliamentarians who want to distract people from the domestic politics of the United Kingdom at this point in time,” she said.

“But the Caribbean should not be used as a prop in those circumstances.”

Braverman attempted to turn the reparations argument on its head by presenting colonial rule as a debt owed to Britain. Mottley’s answer was equally direct: a region built through enslavement, extraction and the legal treatment of human beings as property will not be asked to compensate the power responsible for imposing that system.

The Caribbean, she made clear, is not demanding charity from Britain. It is demanding that Britain confront the historical record.

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

A newly updated House of Commons Library briefing has put fresh attention on the Windrush Compensation Scheme, revealing that the Home Office has now paid out around £127 million to almost 4,000 claims, while hundreds of people are still waiting for an initial decision.

Advertisement

The briefing, published just days before annual Windrush Day celebrations, focuses on the financial compensation scheme set up for people affected by the Windrush scandal, including those who were wrongly denied lawful status, employment, housing, healthcare, benefits, travel, or the right to live in the UK.

According to the latest figures cited in the briefing, 11,759 claims had been lodged by March 2026. Of those, 9,495 had been fully closed, 3,256 were found eligible for payment, and 566 people were still waiting for an initial decision.

Advertisement

The new release updates the public record on the scheme and reflects recent evidence given to Parliament. While there are signs that administration has improved, including shorter average decision times, campaigners and oversight bodies continue to raise serious concerns about how accessible, fair and humane the process is for survivors.

The Windrush Commissioner has warned that many people still find the compensation process confusing, overwhelming and re-traumatising. For some families, the process of proving harm caused by the state has become another burden placed on people who had already suffered loss of work, housing, immigration status, dignity and family stability.

Advertisement

“injustice has been compounded rather than compensated.”  Says Hetticia McIntosh whose husband Vanderbilt McIntosh has received 5 nil awards and was recently offered just £1,100 for loss of employment by the very Home Office which has apologied for the decades of harm it has caused them. There 3 children who were born British citizens were left unable to grow up in the UK because the government did not provide their parents with documentation. The McIntosh family has yet to be properly compensated for their loss and suffering years after applying to the scheme.

The briefing also notes changes introduced under the Labour government, including additional compensation categories for lost pension contributions and withdrawals, wider employment-loss compensation, advance payments during reviews, and priority handling for older claimants aged 75 and above.

A £1.5 million support fund has also been announced to help claimants gather evidence and complete applications. But questions remain over whether the scheme should continue to be administered by the Home Office, the same department responsible for the hostile environment policies that helped create the scandal.

Advertisement

Campaigners have long argued that the scheme should be made fully independent and that claimants should have access to funded legal representation. Many affected people are elderly, traumatised, or have complex cases involving decades-old records, missing paperwork and intergenerational harm.

The updated briefing shows that although compensation payments have increased since the scheme was launched, the Windrush scandal is far from resolved.

For many survivors and their descendants, the central issue remains whether the state has truly recognised the depth of harm caused, and whether a Home Office-run compensation process can ever provide full justice for a scandal created by Home Office failures.

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

The Government of Ireland has announced that nationals of Saint Lucia and Saint Kitts and Nevis will now require visas to travel to Ireland, ending a long-standing visa-free arrangement between the countries. The new requirements take effect on 15 June 2026 and will also apply to travellers transiting through Ireland on their way to another destination.

Advertisement

Ireland's Minister of State for Migration, Colm Brophy, confirmed that citizens of Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Nicaragua will be required to obtain a visa before travelling to the Republic of Ireland. The measure also applies to holders of diplomatic and service passports.

The Irish Government said limited transitional arrangements will be available for certain travellers who already have existing travel plans between 15 June and 14 July 2026. Travellers are being advised to check official immigration guidance before making their journeys, the press release stated.

Advertisement

The move follows a broader tightening of visa policies affecting several Caribbean countries in recent years. In 2024, Ireland introduced visa requirements for nationals of Dominica, while in 2025 visa-free access was removed for nationals of Trinidad and Tobago.

The announcement also comes just months after the United Kingdom removed visa-free access for Saint Lucian nationals, requiring visitors from Saint Lucia to obtain a visa before travelling to the UK.

While the Irish Government has not singled out any specific reason for the latest decision, officials have repeatedly stated that Ireland's visa policies are kept under review to ensure effective immigration controls while balancing legitimate travel, business, study and family visits.

Advertisement

The decision is expected to be closely watched across the Caribbean, particularly in the member states of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), where concerns have grown over increasing travel restrictions being imposed by European countries on Caribbean passport holders.

For Saint Lucian and St Kitts and Nevis citizens planning travel to Ireland after 15 June, a visa application will now be required in advance through Ireland's immigration system.

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

A leading race equality organisation has warned that a growing "hostile climate" is having a damaging impact on young people from ethnic minority communities across the UK, increasing feelings of exclusion, limiting opportunities, and undermining trust in public institutions.

Action for Race Equality (ARE), through its ARE Voices programme, says many young people from Black, Asian and Mixed Heritage backgrounds continue to face barriers in education, employment and wider society, despite years of promises to tackle inequality. The organisation argues that negative public narratives around migration, race and diversity are contributing to a climate in which many young people feel unwelcome and unheard.

Advertisement

Campaigners say the consequences extend beyond employment prospects and educational attainment. They warn that persistent discrimination and unequal treatment can affect mental health, wellbeing and social mobility, particularly among young people already facing economic disadvantage.

The warning comes amid wider concerns about the growing number of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET). ARE recently highlighted evidence that Black, Asian and Mixed Heritage young people remain disproportionately represented among those struggling to access opportunities, pointing to structural barriers, unequal access to networks and discrimination within the labour market.

Advertisement

Race equality advocates are calling for policymakers to place the lived experiences of ethnic minority communities at the centre of decision-making. They argue that solutions must go beyond broad economic interventions and directly address racial inequalities that continue to shape outcomes for many young people.

The concerns also echo findings from recent government-backed research which found that race, racism and racial bias continue to influence life experiences and opportunities for many Black, Asian and Mixed Heritage communities. Researchers warned that failing to acknowledge and address these issues risks allowing inequalities to become further entrenched.

Advertisement

Community organisations are increasingly calling for greater investment in youth services, mentoring programmes, employment support and initiatives that amplify young people's voices in public policy. They argue that meaningful change will require both targeted action and a willingness to confront the structural causes of racial inequality.

As debates continue around social cohesion, economic opportunity and the future of Britain's young people, campaigners say the message is clear: tackling disadvantage requires more than rhetoric—it requires action that addresses the realities experienced by ethnic minority communities every day.

What do you think?

Have you experienced barriers to education, employment or opportunities because of your background? Share your story with Jam Radio News by emailing our newsroom.

Advertisement

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

Part two of Melissa Sigodo’s powerful four-part Windrush series airs tonight, focusing on the devastating experiences of Hetticia (“Tricia”) and Vanderbilt (“Vaun”) McIntosh — and the lasting impact the Windrush scandal has had on their entire family.

The documentary highlights how the couple lost their home, mortgage, careers and livelihoods after being wrongly caught up in the Home Office Windrush scandal. Like many victims, they spent years fighting not only for recognition, but for justice and compensation after the scandal was publicly exposed in 2018.

However, the programme also reveals an often-overlooked consequence of the scandal: the impact on children born in Britain and who have an unqualified right to live here, but were forced out of their own country.

Tricia and Vaun were forced to relocate to St Lucia in the 1980s, after being left unable to prove their right to live and work in the UK, long before the Windrush scandal became national news, and a failure for which the government has continually apologised. But the fallout from the Home Office’s hostile environment policies stretched more than four decades and would later shape the lives of their three children, who are all British citizens by birth.

Tonight’s episode explores how those children of Windrush were effectively forced away from the UK “by proxy”, raising difficult questions about citizenship, belonging and what happens when British families are pushed out by systemic injustice.

Sigodo’s series also shines a light on the emotional and financial toll many Windrush families continue to endure years after the scandal first emerged. Campaigners and victims have repeatedly criticised the compensation scheme for delays, low payouts and retraumatising processes that have left many still waiting for justice.

For families like the McIntosh’s, the damage extends far beyond paperwork and policy. It is about identity, displacement and generations of opportunity lost. With just several weeks before Windrush Day, the Labour government's manifesto promise is now seen as a failure to deliver.

The second instalment of Melissa Sigodo’s docuseries airs tonight at 8pm and continues to give voice to those whose lives were permanently altered by one of the UK’s most shameful modern injustices.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

Downing Street’s planned antisemitism rally is already facing criticism over a guest list many see as politically revealing.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage — a figure repeatedly accused by critics of racism, Islamophobia and amplifying divisive rhetoric — has been invited to stand alongside party leaders at an event supposedly aimed at confronting hate and intolerance.

But Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who is Jewish and has spoken publicly about antisemitism, was not invited.

The contrast has sparked accusations that the event is less about genuinely confronting antisemitism and more about deciding which political voices are considered acceptable within Britain’s mainstream.

Advertisement

Critics argue Farage’s inclusion helps further normalise Reform UK within establishment politics, despite years of controversy surrounding the party’s rhetoric on migrants, Muslims and multiculturalism.

At the same time, Polanski’s exclusion raises uncomfortable questions about whose Jewish identity is recognised in political spaces, particularly when those voices challenge the status quo on issues such as Gaza, protest rights and civil liberties.

The language surrounding the rally has also drawn scrutiny. Organisers called on the “silent majority” to stand up against antisemitism, a phrase long associated with culture-war politics and often used to portray protesters, minorities and dissenting voices as outside the mainstream.

For many observers, the issue is no longer whether antisemitism should be confronted — it absolutely should, but who gets to define it, who gets excluded from the conversation, and whether anti-racism is being applied consistently across political lines.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

A complex and fast‑moving public‑health investigation is underway after dozens of passengers disembarked a cruise liner during its Atlantic route — including one woman who left the ship with her husband’s body before later dying in South Africa.

Authorities now confirm 30 passengers in total left the vessel at Saint Helena, triggering an international tracing effort spanning Europe, North America, Africa and the Caribbean.

⚠️Hantavirus⚠️
A deadly virus outbreak on board a cruise liner has sparked a global race to trace infected passengers across three continents and the Caribbean Island of Saint Kitts and Nevis.#Hantavirüs #StKitts #StkittsandNevis #CanaryIslands pic.twitter.com/DUnGtMFBe4

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) May 8, 2026

Officials on the island released the nationality breakdown of those who disembarked:

• 7 British
• 6 American
• 3 Dutch
• 2 each from Canada, Switzerland and Turkey
• 1 each from Germany, Denmark, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, and Saint Kitts & Nevis

Two additional British passengers — who had already flown home — are now self‑isolating after contacting UK authorities when news of the ship’s cases emerged. Neither reported symptoms at the time of travel.

St. Kitts and Nevis is one of 12 countries that the World Health Organisation (WHO) has placed on alert after a hantavirus outbreak linked to the cruise ship MV Hondius

The ship continued its scheduled route after the Saint Helena stop, dropping anchor off Cape Verde on 3 May. Maritime tracking shows the liner still at sea, heading northeast toward the Canary Islands.

Local officials in Tenerife say the vessel is expected Saturday or possibly Sunday, depending on weather conditions during the final leg of the journey.

ADVERTISEMENT

JamRadio’s regional contacts report that Spanish authorities have confirmed passengers will be quarantined near an airport once the ship arrives. and will be monitored before being declared fit to fly to the respective home countries.

A correspondent in Tenerife says the situation remains fluid: “We’re told the journey will take three to four days, but arrival could slip into Sunday. The quarantine arrangements are still being negotiated.”

The remaining passengers and crew will only be allowed to disembark if they show no symptoms upon arrival. Health teams in the Canaries are preparing for screening, testing and potential isolation orders.

With passengers now scattered across multiple countries and two deaths already linked to the voyage, public‑health agencies are coordinating to trace contacts and assess the wider risk.

JamRadio will continue to monitor developments as the ship approaches the Canary Islands and authorities decide how to manage the next phase of the response.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

Antigua and Barbuda has become the latest Caribbean nation to loosen its formal ties to the British monarchy after introducing a new oath of allegiance that no longer requires loyalty to King Charles III.

Members of the country’s newly elected Cabinet were sworn in this week using revised wording that pledges allegiance to Antigua and Barbuda, its Constitution and its people, instead of the British Crown.

The change follows a constitutional amendment passed by Parliament and marks a historic first for the twin-island nation, which remains part of the Commonwealth.

Prime Minister Gaston Brown meeting with King Charles in LONDON- 17th Sept 2022: at Buckingham Palace. Image credit: Ian Jones

Prime Minister Gaston Browne said the move reflects a growing sense of national identity and independence, describing it as an important step in strengthening the country’s sovereignty.

Under the old oath, ministers and public officials were required to swear loyalty to “His Majesty King Charles III, his heirs and successors.” The updated version instead commits officeholders to serve the state of Antigua and Barbuda and uphold its laws.

The decision has reignited wider discussions across the Caribbean about republicanism and the region’s historical relationship with Britain. Several nations, including Barbados, have already moved away from the monarchy in recent years.

Antigua and Barbuda has previously indicated it could eventually hold a referendum on becoming a republic, particularly following the death of Queen Elizabeth II in 2022.

Despite the constitutional change, King Charles III remains the country’s head of state for now, represented locally by the Governor-General.

The development is being seen by many political observers as another sign of the Caribbean’s continued push toward greater constitutional independence and self-determination.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has waded into the raging storm of the AI revolution with a provocation that sounds suspiciously like a classic bait-and-switch. Speaking recently on the state of the job market, the former leader—now comfortably positioned as an adviser to multi-billion-dollar tech giants Anthropic and Microsoft, has called for the elimination of National Insurance contributions for businesses.

His argument? That our current tax system makes hiring humans "expensive" compared to deploying AI agents. By taxing human labour through National Insurance while leaving AI software largely untaxed, Sunak argues that the government is essentially penalising companies for choosing people over algorithms.

Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is calling for the elimination of National Insurance, arguing that current taxes make AI "cheaper" to hire than humans. Is our tax system disincentivising entry-level jobs? #AI #Economy #Jobs #RishiSunak pic.twitter.com/fiVSngqgIW

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) April 23, 2026

The Billionaire’s "Slick" Logic

On the surface, Sunak’s pitch for tax breaks might seem like a common-sense economic lever. But look closer, and the optics are jarring. Here we have a billionaire, deeply embedded in the very tech firms currently pushing AI into every corner of the British economy, advocating for policies that would effectively subsidise corporate bottom lines.

Advertisement

Sunak is framing this as a "pro-jobs" move, but for the average worker, it feels like a ransom note. The message is clear: If you want companies to hire humans, you have to make humans cheaper—or, at the very least, make the machines more expensive.

 The AI-Industrial Complex

The irony of Sunak’s position is particularly sharp when you consider the extent to which firms like Microsoft and Palantir have already colonised the British state. From the NHS to various government departments, these US giants have secured massive, multi-million-pound contracts to manage the backbone of our public services.

Advertisement

Palantir, for example, is currently at the centre of a heated national debate over its £330 million contract to deliver the NHS Federated Data Platform, with staff, unions, and MPs questioning the wisdom of embedding an American "surveillance-tech" firm into our health service. Meanwhile, the government continues to lock public sector bodies into long-term, high-cost deals with Microsoft, effectively creating a cycle of dependency where the taxpayer funds the very giants now replacing human labour with AI.

The Real Solution: Tax the AI, Not the People

If Sunak is correct that the current tax system is pushing businesses to automate rather than hire, then the answer isn't to slash taxes for corporations—it’s to finally address the "AI dividend."

If AI is indeed killing off entry-level roles, the very rungs of the ladder that young people need to start their careers, then those AI systems should be paying their fair share into the economy. Taxing the deployment of large-scale AI agents is no longer a fringe academic idea; it is a necessary economic defence. The revenue generated from such a tax could serve as a vital buffer for the welfare bill, which is set to balloon as structural unemployment rises, and provide the funding needed to upskill a generation displaced by the rise of the machines.

A Country Under Pressure

The urgency of this debate cannot be overstated. Since the pandemic, the wealth gap in the UK has widened into a chasm. While the top 10% of households continue to accumulate massive wealth, the working class is being crushed.

We are living through a "perfect storm." Two major wars abroad are keeping energy costs volatile and high, feeding directly into a cost-of-living crisis that has left household budgets at a breaking point. When the cost of electricity is high, the cost of heating is high, and food prices remain stubborn, the last thing the British public needs is a race to the bottom where human labour is treated as a "premium" cost to be avoided by corporations.

Sunak may think he’s being "slick" by positioning himself as an advocate for the job market, but he is fundamentally dodging the larger issue: we are witnessing the biggest transfer of wealth from workers to machines in modern history. If the government fails to capture the value generated by AI, they are not just failing to balance the economy, they are abandoning the next generation to a future where they are, quite literally, unaffordable to hire.

JamRadio may earn a commission if you purchase products advertised on our website at no extra cost to you.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: