By John Herbet
The Commonwealth finds itself at an important crossroads, one where the language of economic partnership, investment and shared prosperity is increasingly confronted by unresolved questions of historical injustice, economic inequality and the unequal relationships that continue to define relations between former colonial powers and their former colonies.
The 28th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), taking place in St John’s, Antigua and Barbuda, from 1 to 4 November 2026, presents an opportunity for the organisation to reconsider what its partnership actually means in a world increasingly defined by economic uncertainty, geopolitical competition and demands for historical accountability.
Under the theme, “Accelerating Partnerships and Investment for a Prosperous Commonwealth”, the gathering brings together 56 member states representing approximately 2.7 billion people, nearly a third of the world’s population.
The agenda is ambitious. A pipeline of investment-ready projects valued at approximately US$34 billion, submitted by 20 developing Commonwealth countries, is expected to feature prominently in discussions.
Leaders are also considering measures to remove barriers to intra-Commonwealth trade, establish sustainable debt arrangements and mobilise investment in digital skills, climate resilience and renewable energy.
These are important priorities. However, the Commonwealth must confront a more fundamental question: can an organisation built on the historical legacy of the British Empire genuinely promote shared prosperity without addressing the economic and historical inequalities that continue to affect its members?
Partnership must mean more than investment
The proposed US$34 billion investment pipeline is an encouraging development, particularly for developing member states seeking infrastructure, industrialisation and economic diversification.
The Commonwealth has an opportunity to create meaningful economic relationships between its members, especially at a time when international trade is increasingly affected by tariffs, geopolitical tensions and disruptions to global supply chains.
Secretary-General Shirley Botchwey has argued that stronger intra-Commonwealth trade could protect member states against external economic shocks.
Her observation that countries cannot remain excessively exposed to developments outside their control is particularly relevant in the current international environment.
However, investment partnerships must be evaluated beyond the amounts announced at international summits.
For developing countries, the real measure of investment is whether it creates employment, strengthens domestic industries, develops local skills and expands economic participation.
African and Caribbean countries cannot continue to occupy the position of suppliers of raw materials and recipients of imported goods while the more developed economies retain control over technology, finance, manufacturing and the most profitable stages of international trade.
The Commonwealth must therefore move beyond investment declarations and establish partnerships that address these structural inequalities.
Its proposed programme to remove barriers to intra-Commonwealth trade is a step in the right direction.
The proposed digital-skills fund targeting approximately 10 million young adults is equally important.
But these initiatives must be accompanied by concrete financing commitments and measurable outcomes.
Britain cannot separate its history from the reparations debate
Perhaps the most politically significant development surrounding this summit is the renewed debate over Britain’s historical responsibility for the transatlantic slave trade.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s reported willingness to consider a formal state apology, while ruling out financial reparations, has reopened a difficult conversation that the Commonwealth has struggled to address meaningfully.
His proposal for a debt-restructuring initiative for the poorest Commonwealth countries is presented as an alternative form of addressing historical grievances.
But this raises an important question: can debt restructuring substitute for reparatory justice?
An apology is important. Acknowledging historical suffering and injustice is an essential part of reconciliation. However, an apology without meaningful corrective measures risks becoming a diplomatic gesture that allows former colonial powers to express regret without accepting the broader consequences of their historical actions.
The Caribbean Reparations Commission has consistently argued that reparatory justice must extend beyond expressions of regret. Its Ten Point Plan for Reparatory Justice provides a framework for addressing the enduring consequences of slavery and colonial exploitation.
The position articulated by Antigua and Barbuda Reparations Support Commission chairman Dorbrene O’Marde captures the central concern: an apology cannot simply be offered before everyone moves on as though the consequences of history have disappeared.
This is where Britain’s position deserves scrutiny.
The transatlantic slave trade was not merely a historical tragedy. It was an economic system that generated enormous wealth for European powers while devastating African societies and facilitating the exploitation of generations of enslaved people.
Its consequences cannot be separated from the economic inequalities that continue to characterise relations between developed and developing countries.
If Britain is prepared to acknowledge the suffering caused by slavery, it must also be prepared to engage seriously with the demands for reparatory justice.
Debt relief may be part of a broader corrective framework, but it cannot automatically replace the discussion about responsibility, restitution and historical accountability.
The Commonwealth must confront the contradiction of its own history
The presence of King Charles III at the summit adds another dimension to this debate.
His acknowledgement of the suffering and injustices of the past, while stopping short of a formal apology, reflects the difficult position occupied by the British monarchy.
The institution cannot entirely detach itself from the history of the empire from which the modern Commonwealth emerged.
At the same time, opposition to an apology from sections of British political leadership demonstrates that historical accountability remains politically contested within Britain itself.
However, the Commonwealth should not allow domestic political sensitivities in the United Kingdom to determine the extent to which former colonies can pursue legitimate demands for justice.
The organisation represents countries with different historical experiences, economic circumstances and development priorities. Its relevance should be measured by its ability to facilitate honest engagement with these realities, rather than simply maintaining diplomatic relationships.
Namibia has a direct stake in this conversation
For Namibia, the reparations debate is not an abstract international discussion.
The country continues to pursue recognition and reparatory justice for the 1904 to 1908 genocide committed against the Ovaherero and Nama people under German colonial rule.
Although Namibia’s historical experience is distinct from the transatlantic slave trade, the broader question of colonial responsibility and the consequences of historical atrocities creates common ground with African and Caribbean countries pursuing reparatory justice.
Namibia’s participation in the Commonwealth summit is therefore significant.
The country enters the gathering with interests extending beyond diplomatic representation. It has been actively involved in shaping the Commonwealth’s economic agenda, having hosted the Commonwealth Trade Ministers Meeting and the inaugural Commonwealth Business Summit in Windhoek in June 2025.
That engagement positioned Namibia as an investment destination, particularly in critical minerals, green hydrogen, renewable energy and its emerging oil and gas industry.
The country’s green hydrogen ambitions alone are expected to require approximately N$340 billion in investment.
Namibia also has a direct interest in discussions around sustainable debt and concessional financing, particularly following its reclassification as a lower-middle-income country, which has implications for its access to affordable development financing.
The presence of minister of education, innovation, youth, sports, arts and culture Sanet Steenkamp at the Commonwealth Youth Forum also provides an opportunity for Namibia to engage in discussions about skills development, youth participation and shared prosperity.
However, Namibia must ensure that its participation translates into tangible national benefits.
Its economic diplomacy should be informed by the need to attract investment while protecting national interests, strengthening local participation and ensuring that natural resources contribute meaningfully to domestic development.
Climate justice must also be part of economic justice
Another important dimension of the summit is the relationship between climate change and economic development.
With 49 of the Commonwealth’s 56 members bordering the ocean, climate resilience and ocean health are not peripheral concerns. They are central to the survival and economic security of many member states.
The proposed transition fund to support the movement from fossil fuels towards renewable energy deserves particular attention.
However, developing countries should not be expected to carry the financial burden of an energy transition without adequate international support.
African countries must retain the right to determine their own development pathways while pursuing responsible and sustainable energy policies.
For countries such as Namibia, which are developing opportunities in oil, gas, green hydrogen and renewable energy, the transition must be approached in a manner that balances environmental responsibility with economic development, energy security and employment creation.
A just energy transition cannot mean restricting the development opportunities of poorer countries while wealthier economies retain the economic advantages accumulated through centuries of industrialisation.
A Commonwealth that must prove its relevance
Ultimately, the Commonwealth cannot continue relying on the language of shared history, common values and partnership without confronting the inequalities embedded in its own historical foundations.
The Antigua and Barbuda summit provides an opportunity to move beyond diplomatic declarations and establish a more honest relationship between member states.
The US$34 billion investment pipeline must translate into real economic opportunities. The proposed debt platform must offer meaningful relief to vulnerable economies. The digital-skills initiative must equip young people with opportunities that extend beyond conference commitments.
And, importantly, the reparations debate must not be reduced to whether Britain is prepared to apologise.
Historical justice requires more than carefully worded statements. It requires a willingness to confront the economic and social consequences of historical exploitation.
For Africa and the Caribbean, the Commonwealth must become more than an organisation that celebrates its diversity while avoiding difficult conversations about how that diversity was shaped.
The Commonwealth cannot build a prosperous future by asking its former colonies to celebrate partnership while leaving the consequences of colonialism largely unaddressed.
True partnership requires equality. True reconciliation requires accountability. And shared prosperity requires that the benefits of economic cooperation are experienced by ordinary people across all 56 member states, not merely announced at gatherings of political leaders.
The Commonwealth has an opportunity to demonstrate that it has evolved beyond the historical relationships that gave birth to it. Whether it seizes that opportunity will determine much of its relevance in the years ahead.
- -John Herbet, is a geopolitical analyst and governance consultant
