On stolen African artefacts
By Chidimma Ayogu Sir: The recent return of 119 Benin Bronzes from the Netherlands to Nigeria, though celebrated, highlights the West’s persistent disregard for African dignity. Thousands of artefacts remain
By Chidimma Ayogu
Sir: The recent return of 119 Benin Bronzes from the Netherlands to Nigeria, though celebrated, highlights the West’s persistent disregard for African dignity. Thousands of artefacts remain locked in Western institutions, representing a continuous violation of property rights and economic liberty. To restore African dignity, there must be unconditional ownership transfer of stolen artefacts to their rightful African owners, and compensation for decades of stolen economic opportunity. Reviewing colonial-era laws will also restore Africans’ control over their stolen property.
The continued retention of African artefacts abroad is an ongoing violation of property rights by Western governments. Western institutions’ control of cultural objects belonging to African heirs denies Africans their fundamental right to own and economically benefit from their heritage. A Nigerian art educator cannot teach students using authentic Benin artefacts because foreign governments prohibit their return. An Ethiopian entrepreneur cannot build a heritage tourism business because its cultural capital sits in London museums. African scholars face barriers to researching their own history because Western bureaucrats control access to primary sources.
Foreign institutions must unconditionally transfer ownership of all African artefacts to their rightful owners. This ownership transfer matters because property rights are the bedrock of individual liberty. Current arrangements, including long-term loans or conditional returns, deny Africans full ownership rights. The British Museum still holds legal title to the Benin Bronzes “on loan” to Nigeria, implying Nigerians cannot exercise complete ownership rights. This act violates Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that individuals have absolute rights over legitimately owned property.
In cases involving looted art from the Holocaust era, the legal imperative for unconditional restitution to victims’ families became an internationally recognized law. While the historical context differs, the principle of correcting a large-scale and illegal act of appropriation is the same. African countries must issue unified demands rejecting any conditional clauses. Recognizing individual African villages and cultural heirs as the ultimate rights-holders, rather than just national governments, will ensure property returns to those with legitimate claims.
For over a century, Western institutions have generated enormous revenue from displaying stolen African property. Ticket sales, merchandising, research grants, and international prestige have enriched these museums while denying Africans the economic opportunities their cultural heritage should have generated. This revenue represents a massive transfer of wealth from African cultural heirs to foreign institutions through state-sanctioned appropriation. Compensation would acknowledge the theft of economic opportunity and restore the property and profit that the West stole from Africa.
While there is a limit to full-scale financial compensation for cultural theft of this magnitude, the legal principle of liability rules in restitution can apply. For example, the Met-Italy Accord (2006) involved the return of cultural objects and recognition of Italy’s economic and cultural losses. Post-WWII restitution often combined property return with financial settlements, establishing the precedent that considered damages and lost use in acts of historical theft.
Read Also: Presumptive tax framework to formalise millions of small businesses - Edun
African countries can establish a committee of economists and cultural experts to estimate lost revenue over the period of the illegal retention. Compensation could be in the structure of an endowment fund, which the African Union can oversee. This compensation would create capital that African countries can use to fund education and invest in infrastructure to promote economic prosperity for the continent.
Western institutions, such as the British Museum and the Louvre, operate under specific laws that restrict them from permanently deaccessioning major objects. This bureaucratic barrier is the ultimate legal shield against the repatriation of stolen artefacts. Nongovernmental organizations and civil society groups like the U’Mista Cultural Society in Canada have successfully used direct engagement and moral pressure to compel the return of ceremonial objects. Similarly, civil society organizations like the Pan African Lawyers Union and African Museums and Heritage Restitution can challenge retention laws in Western courts, arguing they violate fundamental property rights and African dignity. The legal strategy should frame these laws as illegitimate exercises of government power, the same as laws that once permitted slavery or other property confiscations. International human rights frameworks recognizing property rights and cultural self-determination provide legal grounds.
African countries must act collectively and decisively to end the colonial legacy that still allows Western institutions to decide what is “best” for African property. Unconditional ownership transfer and compensation for stolen artefacts are only foundations for restoring African dignity. Without the full return of African artefacts, the legacy of colonial dispossession will continue to shape Africa’s future.
•Chidimma Ayogu,
Fellow, African Liberty.
