Reparations for African Peoples: Justice Through Art, Policy, and Peacebuilding

Executive Summary

Reparations and repatriation are critical to achieving historical equity in post-colonial African nations. As Kenyan contemporary artist Peterson Kamwathi notes, reparations add to whatever initiatives exist towards making amends, not cause correcting, but a process through which societies become more aware of the realities they must contend with. The forceful removal of African artefacts and cultural objects during colonial rule severely disrupted traditional systems and imposed European cultural norms, stripping these objects of their historical and sacred meaning. Art and artefact reparation projects acknowledge these losses, facilitating restitutive justice and reshaping cultural narratives.

The African Union’s 2025 theme, “Justice for African People and People of African Descent Through Reparations,” aims to unite African nations in addressing the lasting impacts of slavery and colonialism. This initiative is crucial for recovering history, dismantling colonial narratives, and promoting resilience, revitalising African identity and education. It aligns with Aspiration 5 of Agenda 2063, which seeks to leverage Africa’s rich human, cultural, historical, and natural endowments for inclusive, sustainable development. Cultural heritage and artistic practices are central to this vision, making reparations a pathway to sustainable peace and development.

International legal frameworks, such as the 1954 Hague Convention and the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, define cultural property and oblige states to prevent illicit transfers. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention provides complementary restitution rules. While not originally designed as reparation tools, these frameworks offer African states legal avenues to demand the return of looted artefacts. However, significant structural and practical challenges persist in the protection of cultural property across Africa.

Case studies illustrate the complexities of repatriation. In Algeria, France returned 24 skulls of Algerian resistance fighters in 2020, though only six were conclusively identified. France characterised this as a renewable loan, highlighting legal obstacles and the absence of transparent return criteria. The Stora Report ruled out a formal apology or material support, underscoring the symbolic limitations of France’s engagement with its colonial past. In Egypt, the Rosetta Stone, seized by the British in 1801, remains at the British Museum. Despite Egypt’s persistent demands for its return, the Museum refuses, citing preservation and public access concerns, while the stone’s removal predates international heritage law, creating compounding legal hurdles. In Ethiopia, the 1868 Maqdala looting by British forces resulted in 356 manuscripts being taken. While 13 looted artefacts were returned in 2021, Ethiopia continues to seek the return of twelve sacred tabots held by the British Museum, which cites the British Museum Act 1963 to resist restitution. In Namibia, German colonial rule and the Herero and Nama genocide of 1904 to 1908 led to human remains being exported for racial experimentation. In 2011, 16 skulls were returned by the University of Leipzig. In 2021, Germany formally recognised the genocide and committed to financial reparations and cultural heritage restitution.

To address the challenges of cultural heritage repatriation, this report proposes the establishment of an AU Endowment Fund. This fund would serve as an investment pool, generating a reliable revenue stream to support long-term, complex restitution efforts, including tracing and documenting stolen art, supporting provenance research and legal claims, facilitating negotiations and acquisitions, raising public awareness, and strengthening cultural and archival infrastructure within African nations. The Fund would be established as a specialised trust or foundation under AU auspices, governed by a board of trustees comprising AU officials, member state delegates, technical experts, civil society representatives, and diaspora voices, alongside an independent auditor. Adopting best practices in spending rules, diversified investment, donor engagement, and audit oversight would ensure the Fund’s sustainability and impact.

Cultural reparations and repatriation are fundamental to post-colonial justice in Africa. While legal frameworks provide some recourse, restitution efforts face significant legal, political, and logistical challenges, as evidenced by the cases of Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Namibia. The proposed AU-facilitated continent-wide Endowment Fund offers a sustainable solution by providing long-term financial and institutional support for restitution efforts, ultimately strengthening African cultural infrastructure and identity.

Introduction

The legacies of colonialism continue to impact Africa’s cultural heritage, as post-independence African nations remain entangled in repatriation battles. The African Union’s 2025 theme, “Justice for African People and People of African Descent Through Reparations,” starkly redirects focus to these battles. This policy report engages with this theme to reimagine a reparation policy rooted in a sustainable, future-focused, and collaborative strategy. An in-depth review of the historical context in which the theft of African artefacts and art occurred provides the foundation for engagement with policy ambitions directed at improving existing repatriation efforts. To set this foundation, the report examines the historical context of colonial looting as well as the intricacies of international legal frameworks, with particular attention drawn to the lack of protection for cultural property on the continent. Four case studies are used to examine the complex setting in which repatriation and restitutive justice unfold, and often struggle to occur. Ultimately, this report draws insights and recognises limitations to produce a unique policy position that the African Union can pragmatically implement to pursue reparation and restitutive justice.

Methodology

The purpose of this report is to develop a pragmatic policy recommendation to facilitate reparation efforts and ensure restitutive justice for African people and people of African descent. The report employs a qualitative and interpretive methodology, drawing on both primary and secondary sources on African heritage, international law, and post-colonial studies. Emphasis was placed on centring African perspectives to ensure contextual accuracy and authenticity in historical background and legal analysis.

African Union policy documents, including Agenda 2063 and the 2025 reparations theme, were used to understand institutional frameworks and previous and ongoing cultural reparation efforts. Legal analysis was conducted through a review of international legal instruments and case law relevant to cultural property protection and restitution, with attention to their application and limitations in the African context. Archival analysis, centred principally on the AU archives, was used extensively to navigate the research, frame it through a study of precedents and previous restoration and reparations efforts, and to better inform policy recommendations that reflect African needs and priorities. To bolster policy insights, a single semi-structured interview was conducted with an African contemporary artist who has successfully exhibited work on both the Eurocentric and African international stages. As only one interview was conducted, the purpose was to engage with the lived experience of an African artist.

For the case studies, the general strategy involved authors utilising desktop and secondary research to engage with relevant sources such as academic articles, legal cases, policies, and regulations, as well as AU frameworks to orient the analysis. In-depth engagement with the historical and legal contexts provided analytical insights which, when applied to the chosen case studies,  Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Namibia,  proved effective in drawing out policy potentials and identifying lessons.

The Algerian case study on the loan of colonial-era remains involved a qualitative study of peer-reviewed papers, alongside reports commissioned by the French government and proposed French legislation regarding the restitution process under the principle of inalienability and the Code du Patrimoine. The Ethiopian case study was developed through a qualitative analysis of peer-reviewed papers, UNESCO conventions, and the British Museum’s legal documents to examine the historical context and cultural importance of the looted manuscripts. Newspaper articles were consulted to explore past and current diplomatic negotiations. The Namibian case study employed a qualitative, case-study-based approach focused on the repatriation of human remains and cultural artefacts as a lens for understanding broader issues of historical justice and national identity in Southern Africa. Data was sourced from a review of academic literature, including peer-reviewed journals, policy documents, government statements, and credible media sources to trace the timeline, actors, and impact of repatriation efforts.

Historical Context and Rationale

Understanding African cultural heritage requires a critical examination of the colonial legacy in Africa. The continent is rich in cultural heritage, encompassing a wide range of natural and cultural sites, belief systems, artefacts, visual and performing arts, and the diverse traditional practices that have shaped Africa’s identity throughout history. Colonialism severely disrupted these traditional systems and imposed European cultural norms, often through the forceful removal of African artefacts and cultural objects and their subsequent transfer to European museums. The unethical acquisition of African heritage was carried out by various actors: colonial administrators, missionaries, private collectors, soldiers, and museum officials. Their actions, though varied in motive and method, collectively contributed to the large-scale removal of cultural objects across the continent.

The removal of African cultural heritage during the colonial period was not the result of a single force but rather a network of actors whose actions, intentional or not, contributed to a deep cultural loss. Missionaries, often convinced they were acting for a higher moral purpose, took religious artefacts without seeking permission, disregarding their sacred meaning. Soldiers confiscated cultural objects during military conquest, reducing them to symbols of dominance. Tourists collected items as mementoes, rarely aware of the histories they were displacing. Colonial officials, working systematically, transferred artefacts to museums and research institutions in Europe, stripping them of their original context. Even some African intermediaries, facing colonial pressure or acting in pursuit of survival or personal gain, played a role in this process. Together, these actions fragmented cultural memory and identity, leaving a legacy that African communities are still working to reclaim and heal from today.

These actions created a profound imbalance of power, ceding control of the narrative surrounding African culture and history to European colonisers, an imbalance that continues to affect efforts toward restitution and cultural justice. For the past five decades, African scholars, writers, and nations have been demanding the restitution of cultural heritage taken during colonial rule. Cultural heritage is a selective process involving practices that typically align with human rights standards protected under international law. Restitution is the return of unlawfully removed objects to their rightful owners but, more importantly, it implies a legal obligation to repair the harm caused by the removal. This connects directly to demands for reparation made by African states, which include addressing past injustices through formal apologies, financial compensation, restoration of rights, and the return of stolen items.

Cultural Heritage Reparation: An African Union Perspective

The African Union’s 2025 theme, “Justice for African People and People of African Descent Through Reparations,” builds on the momentum of the Accra Reparations Conference 2023. This renewed focus marks a significant step in advancing Africa’s reparations agenda. Importantly, it presents a vital opportunity for the AU to lead in uniting African nations, peoples, and diasporas in the pursuit of justice, recognition, and the redressing of the lasting impacts of slavery, colonialism, and exploitation.

In this context, cultural heritage reparation is essential, as it enables Africans to recover lost history, reclaim knowledge that was disrupted by colonialism, and rewrite their own narratives. The latter is of particular importance as a counterweight to European colonialist narratives surrounding Africa, namely the “Civilising Mission” narrative, “Europe’s Burden,” and others promoting the idea of Africans’ inability to interact with or value their arts. The process of reparation fosters resilience, strength, and pride, elements that can help address contemporary challenges facing the continent. The looting of human remains, cultural objects, and artworks represented more than material loss; it stripped communities of their sense of identity and collective memory. Therefore, returning these items is not merely about restoring physical artefacts. It is a recognition of historical injustices and a symbolic act of healing. Furthermore, restitution supports the revival of cultural education, the resurgence of heritage practices, and the rebuilding of historical awareness, ultimately reshaping African identity and reaffirming the continent’s rightful place in global history.

Moreover, revisiting African culture reveals its potential as a tool for inter- and intra-community peacebuilding. For centuries, African communities have documented their lived experiences and organised their societies through artistic expression, which continues to play a vital role in post-conflict processes, including truth-telling, accountability, and reconciliation. This demonstrates the strong connection between arts, culture, peace, and security in post-conflict resolution.

Using art as a form of post-conflict healing aligns directly with Aspiration 3 and Aspiration 4 of the African Union’s Agenda 2063. Aspiration 3 envisions an Africa with good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice, and the rule of law. Aspiration 4 aims to create a peaceful and secure Africa by preventing conflicts, managing existing ones, and promoting reconciliation in post-conflict settings. Art and culture can promote unity, foster shared identity, and support reconciliation programmes that contribute to long-term peace and stability.

The AU’s 2025 theme on reparations also aligns with Aspiration 5 of Agenda 2063, which seeks to harness Africa’s rich human, cultural, historical, and natural endowments to drive inclusive, people-centred growth and sustainable development. Cultural heritage and artistic practices are central to this vision, making reparations not only an act of justice but a pathway to sustainable peace and development.

In summary, reparation is not only about righting historical wrongs; it is a transformative process that restores identity, strengthens unity, and supports Africa’s broader development goals. Through this year’s theme and its alignment with Agenda 2063, the African Union reaffirms its commitment to justice, healing, and the revitalisation of African cultural legacy as a foundation for peace, resilience, and sustainable progress.

Archival Analysis

The African Union archives serve as a crucial evidentiary site for understanding the transformation of reparations from a fragmented post-colonial demand to a consolidated continental policy priority. Rather than treating archives as passive repositories, this analysis approaches AU archival materials as active instruments of political authorship — documents that reflect and shape the evolving normative architecture of African-led justice. A close reading of four key sources,  EX.CL/223(VIII) (2006), EX.CL/1501(XLIV) (2024), the African Transitional Justice Policy (2019), and the 27th Activity Report of the ACHPR reveal that the AU has constructed a reparative framework that is juridical, institutional, and transgenerational in its ambitions. Together, these archives not only chronicle the continent’s engagement with restitution and reparations but also assert Africa’s right to author its own justice narratives within global governance systems.

Foundational Calls: Drafting a Common African Position on Restitution (2006)

The 2006 document EX.CL/223(VIII) marked an early articulation of the AU’s intention to formalise restitution within its legal and diplomatic structures. The draft policy called for the creation of a Common African Position on the Restitution of Cultural Property, explicitly recognising that the mass removal of African cultural heritage under colonial regimes constituted a violation of cultural sovereignty and self-determination. Importantly, the document critiques the inadequacies of international conventions, such as the 1970 UNESCO Convention, in addressing historical looting. Instead, it recommends African-led bilateral and multilateral mechanisms rooted in legal innovation and moral legitimacy.

Crucially, the report includes the Commissioner’s position that the AU Commission aspires to use culture as a vehicle for social, economic, and political integration, and that Africa must promote, protect, and renovate its cultural assets at national, regional, and continental levels. This archival document reframes restitution not as symbolic redress but as a material condition of post-colonial dignity and regional integration. In doing so, it set the stage for future institutional developments and established an enduring policy rationale for the recovery of African cultural patrimony.

Operationalising Justice: The African Transitional Justice Policy (2019)

Adopted by the African Union in February 2019 during its 32nd Ordinary Session in Addis Ababa, the African Transitional Justice Policy (ATJP) codifies the Union’s commitment to embedding transitional justice within continental governance systems. The ATJP identifies reparations as one of its five core pillars, alongside truth-seeking, accountability, reconciliation, and institutional reform, and explicitly defines reparations as encompassing restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. Within this framework, restitution is not limited to legal property claims but extends to the restoration of cultural artefacts, reinstatement of communal land rights, and symbolic acts of acknowledgement and apology from state and regional actors.

Unlike dominant transitional justice models in the Global North, which tend to emphasise individualised legal remedies within post-conflict liberal democratic transitions, the ATJP asserts a collective, Afrocentric model of justice. It integrates customary law, spiritual healing, and collective memory work into its framework and urges member states to adopt context-specific national transitional justice policies that reflect local histories of violence and resistance. This policy orientation reconceptualises restitution not simply as the return of tangible assets, but as a transformative tool for rebuilding the moral and civic foundations of post-conflict societies, re-legitimising the state, and affirming the historical dignity of marginalised groups.

As a foundational document, the ATJP signals a paradigmatic shift in Africa’s justice architecture: from episodic reconciliation initiatives to an institutionalised, forward-looking reparations regime embedded in continental law and practice. Collectively, these archival documents demonstrate that the African Union is not merely responding to past harms but actively authoring a future-oriented, legally grounded, and structurally integrated reparations regime.

International Legal Frameworks

Over the centuries, several instruments have indirectly addressed cultural property in conflict, including the Lieber Code of 1863, the Brussels Declaration of 1874, the Oxford Manual of 1880, and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. However, these treaties did not explicitly define “cultural property” or establish clear prohibitions against its destruction or appropriation, focusing primarily on limiting wartime conduct without a direct framework for the preservation of cultural heritage.

In 1954, the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict was drafted to address this gap. It was the first comprehensive treaty explicitly dedicated to the protection of cultural property, defining it as movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, including architectural, artistic, historical, and religious interests. It established obligations to safeguard and respect cultural property in armed conflict, imposed prohibitions on using cultural property for military purposes, and created the emblem system to mark protected heritage.

The First Protocol (1954) to the Hague Convention addressed a critical gap by specifically prohibiting the export of cultural property from occupied territories during armed conflict and requiring the return of such property at the close of hostilities. This ensured that cultural property would not be removed and retained by occupying powers, an issue not explicitly covered in the main convention text. However, much like the main convention, the First Protocol applied only to international armed conflicts, leaving cross-border or internal armed conflicts outside its explicit scope.

The Second Protocol (1999) was adopted to address enforcement and scope limitations in the original convention. Article 22(1) extended protections to non-international armed conflicts, which the original convention only implied but did not explicitly cover. The Protocol established individual criminal responsibility for serious violations against cultural property and introduced enhanced protection mechanisms for cultural sites of greatest importance. Additionally, it required states to incorporate these protections into national criminal legislation, filling the enforcement gap and ensuring that violators can be held accountable under both domestic and international law.

Despite these provisions, the strength of any law, especially international law, lies in its implementation. States have historically shown inconsistency in implementing international legal obligations, and the protection of cultural property is no exception. This has also been evident in Africa, where implementation has been uneven. Out of 54 African states, only 32 have ratified the 1954 Convention, 20 have ratified the First Protocol, and 14 have ratified the Second Protocol. Reporting to UNESCO has been limited, and many states lack enabling legislation to domesticate treaty obligations, hindering effective protection of cultural property during conflict.

Application in the African Context

Despite these international frameworks, the protection of cultural property in Africa remains inadequate, reflecting a broader global challenge of translating legal commitments into effective action. African states face both structural and practical challenges in implementing these obligations. Armed conflict, governance challenges, and limited resources have led to the continued destruction and theft of cultural heritage across the continent. Cultural heritage sites are often used for military purposes, exposing them to attacks and damage during conflicts. The absence of comprehensive national inventories, inadequate military training on the protection of cultural property, and weak legal enforcement frameworks further undermine effective safeguarding.

While many African countries — such as Mali and Nigeria — have taken important steps towards protecting heritage during conflicts, these efforts are often constrained by delayed ratification of relevant treaties and the absence of enabling legislation to implement them. As a result, the application of international legal frameworks falls short of what is required to ensure the effective protection of cultural property during armed conflict.

Repatriation and Restitution under International Law

The right to repatriation of cultural heritage is grounded in established principles of international law, including state sovereignty, self-determination, and the right to reparations for wrongful acts under customary international law. It is further supported by treaty frameworks such as the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which obliges states to prevent the illicit movement of cultural property, and the UNIDROIT Convention of 1995, which provides complementary rules for the restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects.

While these instruments were not specifically designed as a framework for reparation, they create legal avenues through which African nations can demand the return of looted artefacts as part of broader efforts toward cultural reparation. In doing so, they acknowledge historical injustices and contribute to the rebuilding of cultural identities assailed by colonial plunder and illicit trafficking.

Case Law and Relevant Precedents

While not exhaustive, several key cases and mechanisms illustrate the growing legal recognition of cultural property repatriation within international law. The Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) case before the International Court of Justice addressed the return of cultural property within a territorial dispute, highlighting how cultural sites are intertwined with sovereignty and national identity.

The Al Mahdi case before the International Criminal Court further advanced the legal protection of cultural heritage, establishing the intentional destruction of cultural sites as a war crime under international law. This landmark case reinforced accountability for heritage destruction and signals that protecting cultural heritage is increasingly seen as integral to post-conflict justice and human rights frameworks. Mechanisms such as the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property, demonstrated in Nigeria’s ongoing efforts to secure the return of the Benin Bronzes, also illustrate how negotiation can facilitate repatriation.

Bilateral agreements have also proven effective in certain cases. Nigeria successfully secured the return of artefacts from Germany, including the Benin Bronzes, through a bilateral agreement. These items are now housed in the newly established Museum of West African Art (MOWAA), a dedicated institution built to preserve and display returned cultural heritage. This case serves as a powerful example of how direct negotiations between states can lead to meaningful restitution.

By contrast, countries such as the United Kingdom, which still retains a large share of African artefacts, have resisted repatriation, instead offering financial compensation and justifying their refusal by arguing that African nations lack the resources and capacity to safeguard these artefacts. Such claims not only ignore the efforts made by countries like Nigeria but also reinforce outdated colonial narratives that deny Africans agency over their own heritage. As a result, many African nations have been forced to pursue individual bilateral agreements rather than collective continental efforts. This is largely due to the limitations imposed by the current International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics, which was historically crafted to favour colonial acquisitions. Urgent reform of these frameworks is essential both to support broader reparative justice and to enable the rightful return of cultural heritage to communities where it originated.

Insights from Select Case Studies

Reparation encompasses more than righting historical wrongs; it embodies a transformative process that restores identity, strengthens unity, and supports Africa’s broader development goals. Under colonial rule, communities and nations experienced numerous instances of appropriation and theft of artefacts and art, much of which remains in the possession of European governments or under private ownership. African countries continue to seek recognition, reparations, and restitution, as well as the return of these artefacts and artworks.

It is necessary to recognise that due to the arbitrary process of border-drawing led by occupying and colonial powers, distinct and distinguishable communities were separated or displaced. By acknowledging that distinct communities exist irrespective of national borders, a single community can advance a legal argument through any state or states in which its members hold citizenship. The theft of cultural valuables from communities remains a cross-border, pan-African experience. However, the retrieval of these stolen valuables and accompanying reparations has rested on the shoulders of national governments. The following select case studies — while only a small representation of the diverse continent — provide key context and insights.

Algeria: Repatriating Colonial-Era Human Remains

Between the mid-19th and early 20th centuries, French colonial forces in Algeria seized the skulls of resistance fighters as trophies of war, later storing them at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris. By the 2010s, the museum held more than 18,000 human remains from across the world, many acquired through colonial violence or pseudo-scientific expeditions. The discovery and partial return of these remains in July 2020 became a test case for historical justice, reparations, and the limitations of symbolic diplomacy between former colonial powers and African states.

In 2011, Algerian historian Ali Farid Belkadi identified 68 skulls of Algerian origin through extensive archival research and cross-referencing colonial records. Civil society actors, including French and Algerian scholars, launched petitions and open letters. A 2016 online petition led by Ibrahim Senouci gathered more than 30,000 signatures, pressuring French authorities to return the remains by referencing the Évian Accords.

A Franco-Algerian committee was established in 2018 to identify remains eligible for return. This process coincided with President Macron’s 2017 declaration describing colonialism as crimes against humanity, which created a limited opening for symbolic gestures. French law treats national collections as inalienable public property, and the 2020 return relied on a special executive decision rather than a permanent restitution law. Only six of the returned skulls were definitively linked to known resistance fighters; the rest had uncertain or conflicting provenance. France described the return as a renewable loan, reinforcing perceptions of reluctance to relinquish full ownership. The Stora Report ruled out a formal apology for colonial violence, limiting the return’s restorative potential. No material endowment or technical support was provided to help Algeria conserve or memorialise the remains, highlighting the risks of purely symbolic returns.

Lessons Learned from Algeria

Domestic legal frameworks take precedence over goodwill. Algeria’s case demonstrates that without binding national laws, returns remain discretionary and symbolic. Local research builds leverage, and evidence-based advocacy strengthens claims. Civil society engagement sustains momentum, grassroots historians, diaspora petitions, and legal challenges all proved effective. Regional coordination creates power, as collective approaches reduce the risk of one-off, politically diluted returns. Finally, symbolic gestures are insufficient: without legal transfer, open acknowledgement, and material support for local conservation, permanent loans risk becoming performative.

Policy Recommendations

First, strengthen domestic legal standing by enacting or updating national heritage laws to define human remains as a protected category with a right to restitution, establishing clear national procedures for identifying claimants, and requiring national museums and archives to collaborate with claimants by law. Second, build national provenance and identification capacity by investing in local forensic labs, archives, and digital databases, mandating that repatriated remains are processed through community-led research committees, and developing technical partnerships with universities and heritage bodies. Third, develop community protocols for consent and reburial by adopting national guidelines to ensure free, prior, and informed consent for any research or display and providing funding for dignified local memorialisation, reburial, or community museums. Fourth, mandate transparency of domestic collections by requiring national museums to inventory and publish collections of human remains or colonial artefacts, and committing to annual public updates on claims and progress. Fifth, leverage the AU for collective negotiation by establishing an AU Restitution Coordination Mechanism to pool legal expertise, standardise templates, and track progress, and publishing an annual Repatriation Scorecard to highlight which countries are responsive. Sixth, integrate repatriation into foreign policy by embedding restitution demands into the cultural affairs work of embassies, including restitution in bilateral negotiations and trade agreements, and training diplomats in heritage law.

Namibia: Repatriation and Its Impact on National Identity and Historical Justice

Reparations and repatriation have become central to global conversations about historical justice, particularly in post-colonial African nations. For Southern African countries such as Namibia, the return of human remains and cultural artefacts removed during colonial rule is an essential part of national healing and the reconstruction of historical narratives. This case study examines the repatriation efforts in Namibia, exploring how they have contributed to restoring national identity, promoting historical justice, and facilitating peacebuilding through cultural empowerment.

Background

Namibia experienced severe colonial brutality under German rule, most notably the Herero and Nama genocide from 1904 to 1908. During and after this atrocity, German scientists and institutions exported the human remains of genocide victims to Europe for racial experimentation, alongside looted cultural artefacts. For decades, these items remained in European museums and universities, becoming symbols of unresolved colonial trauma and the continued denial of African humanity and dignity.

The Repatriation Process

Efforts to reclaim these remains began in the early 2000s, led by both the Namibian government and local communities. A significant milestone occurred in 2011, when 16 skulls of Herero and Nama victims were returned by the University of Leipzig in Germany, remains that had been used in anthropological studies to support colonial ideologies of racial hierarchy. Repatriation efforts were further strengthened in 2021, when Germany formally recognised the genocide and committed to financial reparations and the restitution of cultural heritage items.

In addition to human remains, cultural objects such as ceremonial items, weapons, and personal artefacts have been requested by Namibia. These items, housed in European museums, are deeply tied to spiritual and communal identity. Their return is viewed not merely as a diplomatic gesture but as a profound act of justice and reclamation.

Impact on National Identity and Historical Justice

The repatriation of human remains and cultural objects has had a significant impact on Namibia’s national consciousness. It has restored a sense of dignity to affected communities, particularly descendants of the Herero and Nama peoples. Traditional burial rites, long denied by colonial powers, have been performed upon the return of remains, providing emotional and spiritual closure. Moreover, the return of these artefacts has challenged colonial narratives that minimised or denied the genocide. By acknowledging and confronting this past, Namibia has taken ownership of its historical narrative, reinforcing a sense of collective memory and resistance against historical erasure.

Repatriated artefacts are now being incorporated into public exhibitions and educational curricula. Institutions like the Namibian National Museum have used these objects to spark conversations about colonialism, genocide, and reconciliation, helping foster a culture of historical awareness among Namibian youth. Despite these successes, the process of repatriation remains slow and complex. Negotiations often face bureaucratic and legal hurdles, and not all institutions have agreed to return items. Furthermore, repatriation alone cannot address the broader economic and social inequalities that persist due to colonial exploitation. Nonetheless, the symbolic and cultural significance of these acts remains powerful and continues to shape national dialogue.

Policy Recommendations

First, establish a National Repatriation and Restorative Justice Commission, a dedicated, multi-stakeholder body mandated to coordinate all repatriation efforts, including managing negotiations with foreign institutions, overseeing the respectful return and burial of remains, and advising on reparative measures such as memorialisation and education. Second, integrate repatriated materials into a decolonised national curriculum by revising education to include repatriated artefacts in history and civic education, teach about colonial violence and genocide from an African perspective, and promote restorative history and cultural pride among youth. Third, create decentralised memorial and healing centres in affected regions, ensuring that repatriated remains and artefacts are returned not only to national museums but to the communities from which they were taken, with state investment in community-based memorial and healing centres in the Herero and Nama regions. Fourth, advocate for a legally binding international framework for repatriation by leading, in collaboration with the AU and UNESCO, calls for an international legal instrument that recognises repatriation as a human right, imposes obligations on former colonial powers, and facilitates cross-border restitution without excessive legal or bureaucratic barriers.

Egypt’s Rosetta Stone: Repatriation Through Moral and Legal Appeal

Few artefacts carry the symbolic weight of the Rosetta Stone. The fragment of carved basalt unlocked the meaning of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, opening the door to understanding thousands of years of history. Discovered during Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt in the late 18th century, the stone features a decree inscribed in three scripts — hieroglyphic, Demotic, and Greek — making it significant to scholars but also to imperial powers as a trophy of conquest. After British forces defeated the French in Egypt in 1801, the stone was claimed as part of the Treaty of Alexandria and shipped to the British Museum, where it has remained ever since. When the treaty was signed, Egypt was legally an Ottoman province under temporary French occupation and did not have sovereign authority to contest the transfer, making it a wartime seizure without consent rather than a neutral act of preservation.

Following Egypt’s independence and the rise of Arab nationalism under President Abdel Nasser, Egyptian officials and the public began to more forcefully challenge the historic looting of their cultural heritage. New museums were built in Egypt, revitalising interest in ancient heritage as a cornerstone of national identity. By the 2000s, global civil society and academia had joined this cause, making the repatriation of the Rosetta Stone a central demand in Egypt’s cultural diplomacy.

The British Museum continues to resist repatriation, arguing that its stewardship scientifically preserves the stone and ensures public access. Legally, Egypt’s claims are constrained by the fact that international heritage law cannot be applied retroactively. The 1970 UNESCO Convention does not apply to artefacts removed before the convention was adopted. Egypt’s Minister of Antiquities acknowledged in 2017 that no documentation exists to prove the legal export of the stone in the 19th century, while also recognising that the absence of such documentation does not necessarily constitute proof of theft. British law, which classifies national museum holdings as inalienable public property, further complicates the legal landscape.

Despite these legal obstacles, Egypt has pursued a public campaign for the stone’s return based on moral appeals to dignity and post-colonial justice. Former Antiquities Chief Zahi Hawass made formal requests to the British Museum in 2003 and 2009, both of which were denied. He also engaged in issue linkage with other high-profile repatriation campaigns globally. In 2022, a petition led by Egyptian archaeologists and academics gathered more than 100,000 signatures. Interest in the stone will likely continue to grow with Egypt investing in domestic museum infrastructure, including the Grand Egyptian Museum in Giza, steadily weakening the British argument that repatriated artefacts would lack proper conservation conditions.

Lessons Learned from Egypt’s Case

Legal ambiguity favours retention: without legal frameworks that apply retroactively, restitution cases depend on moral persuasion rather than enforceable law. Documentation gaps weaken claims, making it harder to win legal or diplomatic battles. Persistent public advocacy matters: when the legal case is weak, sustained pressure by officials, scholars, and civil society helps maintain visibility and moral urgency. Museums frequently invoke conservation and public access narratives to justify holding contested objects indefinitely, even after concrete steps towards safe preservation have been taken by the countries of origin.

Policy Recommendations

First, strengthen domestic legal standing by creating legal mechanisms to assert claims on objects taken during colonial occupation, regardless of date. Second, build provenance research capacity by investing in national archives and digital databases to reconstruct the history of key artefacts and supporting domestic educational institutions and training in heritage documentation. Third, shift cultural diplomacy strategies by linking restitution demands to bilateral cultural exchange programmes and offering long-term exhibition partnerships and temporary loans as interim trust-building measures toward permanent return.

Ethiopia’s Stolen Manuscripts: A Case for Cultural Repatriation and Reparative Justice

Context

In 1868, during a military expedition against Emperor Tewodros II in Ethiopia, British troops looted hundreds of manuscripts and artefacts from the fortress at Maqdala, the Empire’s capital. The Battle of Maqdala left deep marks of colonial violence on a population that lost items of high spiritual and cultural value — objects now dispersed across British institutions. The African Union’s 2025 Reparation Theme offers a crucial opportunity to advance restorative justice and the return of Ethiopia’s cultural heritage.

Historical and National Significance

The Maqdala looting was facilitated by British Museum Acting Director Richard Holmes, whose stated goal was to bring artworks from the expedition to the Museum. Emperor Tewodros II had set up the Medhanialem Library with more than 1,000 manuscripts as part of his modernisation programme. Following his defeat and death, British troops looted the capital, and Holmes collected 356 manuscripts. Some manuscripts are also located in the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford, which houses 66 Ethiopian manuscripts either donated or purchased in the aftermath of the expedition, eleven of which are directly linked to Maqdala.

Beyond being historical materials, the Ethiopian manuscripts are part of Ethiopia’s Orthodox Christian traditions, ceremonial customs, and cultural identity. According to the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, these manuscripts fall within the framework of intangible cultural heritage, embedded in Ethiopian spiritual and cultural life and requiring transmission to preserve communities’ knowledge systems across generations. Retaining these manuscripts in British museums and libraries hinders access to national knowledge not only for Ethiopian communities but also for Ethiopian researchers who cannot conduct in-depth studies based on their intellectual heritage.

Current Status and Cultural Diplomacy

Diplomatic efforts achieved a successful outcome in 2021, when 13 Ethiopian artefacts looted during the Battle of Maqdala were returned to Ethiopia, including a red and brass imperial shield, a crafted processional cross, and a painted triptych of the Crucifixion. The Ethiopian Embassy to the United Kingdom had also begun negotiations with the British Museum to return 12 tabots — sacred replicas of the Ark of the Covenant, taken from Maqdala. One tabot was privately restituted through the mediation of Dr. Jacopo Gnisci, a professor at UCL, who identified it and prevented it from being sold online in 2023.

However, 11 more plundered Ethiopian relics remain in the British Museum’s collection, and one at Westminster Abbey. Calls for restitution from the Ethiopian government, civil society organisations, and public figures continue. The Museum cites the British Museum Act 1963, which prohibits deaccessioning objects from its collection except under special circumstances, and has proposed long-term loans rather than unconditional restitution. This context reveals the policy gap between the United Kingdom’s domestic legal framework and international agreements on the repatriation of cultural heritage, further reflecting the power asymmetry between African countries and Western institutions.

Policy Recommendations

First, advance bilateral cooperation between Ethiopia and Great Britain by increasing diplomatic efforts between national governments and cultural institutions to push for the implementation of restitution processes. Second, promote digital repatriation and accessibility of the stolen manuscripts by facilitating digital repatriation through the creation of digital copies and virtual experiences, allowing community access and engagement until complete restitution is achieved. Third, strengthen legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms for restitution, with the African Union, national governments, and UNESCO cooperating to harmonise and establish binding legal frameworks, including continuous monitoring systems, dispute-resolution procedures, and protocols to enhance repatriation efforts. Fourth, amplify civil society and local communities’ voices in restitution efforts by holding institutional forums that convene the AU, British museums, government representatives, civil society actors, and local communities to empower communities to claim artefacts back and express the cultural, religious, and identity-driven significance of restitution.

Cross-Border, Pan-African Insights

Analysis of the above case studies draws attention to key lessons. While reparations and repatriation efforts are contextual and involve culture-, community-, and country-specific nuances, several cross-cutting lessons can inform policy strategies.

Regional coordination creates power: collective approaches reduce the risk of one-off, politically diluted returns, and leveraging regional and collaborative relationships allows for the successful use of soft power to pursue reparations. Civil society engagement strengthens claims, as grassroots historians, diaspora petitions, and legal challenges can sustain momentum. Inaccurate documentation and subsequent gaps weaken claims to ownership. Domestic legislation needs to be developed to encompass artefacts and artworks within legal frameworks that facilitate reparation rights. A robust provenance research capacity supports reparation efforts through the development of an adequate educational foundation for cultural heritage.

Endowment Fund for the Repatriation of Stolen African Artworks

The case studies discussed above highlight key recommendations with the potential to amplify Africa’s reparation project. While each case study involved context-specific challenges, together they illustrate the diverse nature of the continent and the collective scale of the problem. The AU’s “Justice for African People and People of African Descent” theme presents the opportunity to re-engage with reparations collectively as a continent by leveraging the institution’s membership. The creation of an endowment fund offers a sustainable, efficient, and effective future-oriented strategy.

Historical Context of Looting and Restitution

Beginning in the late 19th century, European colonial powers aggressively looted African art and cultural heritage. British forces sacked Benin City in 1897, seizing thousands of ivory and brass artefacts, the Benin Bronzes. Similar raids occurred in present-day Cameroon, Nigeria, Tanzania, Namibia, and elsewhere. By some estimates, over 500,000 identifiable African cultural objects now reside in Western museums, meaning more than 90% of all cultural artefacts known to originate in Africa are held overseas. The British Museum alone holds 69,000 African items.

These artefacts are not mere curiosities but often sacred or historically significant objects, royal regalia, ancestral masks, ritual items — that embodied communal identity. Their removal disrupted the transmission of knowledge, rites, and heritage, inflicting a living wound on source communities. UNESCO has framed restitution as a process of healing, justice, and empowerment for dispossessed peoples.

African demands for return date back decades. UNESCO’s Director-General Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow appealed for restitution in 1978. However, Western museums and governments largely resisted. State laws, such as the French view of public collections as inalienable property and British statutes protecting national collections, effectively blocked many requests. Only recently have official returns begun. France repatriated dozens of items to former colonies following the 2018 Sarr-Savoy commission. Germany signed a 2022 memorandum to return 1,130 Benin artefacts to Nigeria. Yet actual returns remain very limited, only a handful of objects out of thousands of formal requests, with many African governments resorting to purchasing looted art or forming special agencies to negotiate returns.

The need for systematic action is underscored by UNESCO’s 1970 Convention, which makes the return of stolen cultural property a central goal of international law. However, global mechanisms lack dedicated funding or enforcement. African states have often been under-resourced to mount claims or research provenance. The AU’s 2018 Model Law on Cultural Property highlights weak national laws, poor awareness, and insufficient funding for protection and restitution. In sum, centuries of dispossession have created a vast restitution challenge: most African heritage is held abroad, and recovering it will require sustained effort, expertise, and resources beyond ad hoc campaigns.

The Strategic Case for an Endowment Fund

An endowment fund, a capital investment pool that generates income annually, offers strategic advantages for cultural repatriation.

Sustainable, Unrestricted Funding. Unlike one-off donations or government grants, an endowment provides a reliable revenue stream in perpetuity. The invested principal remains intact, while a prudent spending rule,  typically 3 to 5% of the fund’s value per year,  yields steady support for operations. This continuity enables long-term planning, which is critical for the complex, multi-year process of tracing, negotiating, and transferring artworks.

Attracting Major Donors. Endowments signal long-term commitment, attracting philanthropists and institutional partners. Large donors can commit principal donations whose income perpetually supports the mission. Specialised endowment vehicles already exist in the art world, demonstrating how pooling capital can reduce or eliminate dependency on short-term fundraising.

Financial Resilience. In economic downturns, an endowment acts as a financial cushion, ensuring that surges in demand or costly legal battles will not derail the effort. A well-governed fund would mitigate investment risk through diversified portfolios and conservative spending policies.

Strategic Growth and Impact. Since endowments can grow over time, they enable scalable impact. Donors who care about Africa’s cultural future can contribute, knowing their gift yields compounding benefits. An endowment-backed project reassures stakeholders — African governments, international partners, civil society,  that restitution efforts have dedicated, growing resources.

Objectives of the Repatriation Fund

The Fund should pursue clear, measurable objectives. It should locate and document stolen art by maintaining a database of high-priority lost objects, funding research trips and archival work, and encouraging AU member states to compile lists of known missing works,  with a tangible goal of cataloguing a defined percentage of historically looted collections from each region by 2030. It should support provenance research and legal claims by allocating grants to museums, universities, and NGOs in Africa to build provenance expertise and covering legal fees for filing claims in complex jurisdictions. It should facilitate negotiations and acquisitions by providing funding for diplomacy, travel for African curators to sit at negotiation tables, and the transportation of repatriated items. It should invest in return-ready institutions by supporting African museums and cultural centres to receive returned artefacts, including funding exhibition spaces, conservation labs, and community displays. Finally, it should raise public awareness by sponsoring exhibitions in Africa and globally, funding educational campaigns highlighting African provenance, and hosting an annual Pan-African cultural symposium on restitution.

Operational and Governance Framework

The Endowment Fund should be an independent but AU-affiliated entity with robust governance.

Legal Structure. It could be established as a specialised trust or foundation under AU auspices, either as a fund housed within the AU budget structure protected by board resolution, or as a separate legal entity with its own board. A separate foundation provides greater legal protection for its assets and allows for dedicated staff. Whichever structure is chosen, the Fund’s governing documents must lock in its mission, only income spendable, principal preserved, and establish clear spending rules, such as a 4% annual draw.

Board Composition. The Board of Trustees should combine stakeholder representation with expertise, including AU officials, with the AU Commissioner for Social Affairs potentially chairing or appointing a trustee,  member state delegates from different regions, independent technical experts with museum, legal, or finance backgrounds, civil society and diaspora representatives, and an independent auditor or audit committee.

Fiduciary Oversight. The Fund must adopt strong transparency and accountability practices, including annual financial statements audited by a reputable firm and public reporting of activities. An Investment Committee should set policy in consultation with a professional investment advisor, approving an Investment Policy Statement that balances growth and preservation and includes ethical guidelines. A spending policy, commonly 3 to 5% of a three- to five-year trailing average, should guide annual budget allocations, smoothing out market fluctuations.

Transparency Mechanisms. All key documents, annual budgets, audited reports, and board minutes  should be publicly available. The Fund could establish a Restitution Observatory portal listing claims and progress, reinforcing that Africa leads this process. Reporting lines should go to the AU Assembly and relevant Executive Council.

Risk Management. Major risks include market risk, legal and political risk, and reputational risk. These are mitigated by maintaining a well-diversified portfolio, keeping an operating reserve of two to three years of budget, conducting periodic risk assessments, and only funding vetted claims with proper provenance documentation.

Funding Sources and Financial Sustainability

Colonial Reparations and Government Contributions. Several former colonial powers have made reparations or development pledges. Germany’s 2021 agreement with Namibia of €1.1 billion included €50 million for a reconciliation foundation supporting cultural projects. The AU and member states should negotiate that a portion of any reparations agreement is earmarked for the Endowment Fund. The AU has resolved that all member states devote at least 1% of their national budgets to culture and heritage by 2030, and those cultural allocations could include contributions to the Endowment.

African Union Member State Donations. The AU could seed the Fund from its budget or dedicated cultural programmes. AU summits or specialised committees could annually resolve additional contributions. If each of the 50 AU states contributed even a modest sum annually, the Fund’s corpus would grow steadily.

Philanthropic and Corporate Donors. International foundations and corporations concerned with cultural heritage, human rights, or development could donate endowment gifts. The Open Society Foundations pledged $10 million in 2019 to strengthen African heritage restitution networks. Similar grants from the Ford Foundation, Mellon, and African diaspora philanthropies could be treated as principal gifts. The Fund should establish gift acceptance policies for all forms of capital, including cash, securities, and art endowments.

Diversified Investment. A typical long-term asset allocation, a mix of global equities, bonds, real estate, and alternative assets, is recommended. Given the Fund’s mission, it might also invest in African markets to support local economies while managing risk. Historically, arts endowments aim for 5 to 7% real returns. A spending policy limiting withdrawals to 4% of the Fund’s five-year rolling average is common, leaving the remainder for inflation and growth. An initial $100 million fund at 5% spending could disburse $4 to $5 million annually in perpetuity, sponsoring dozens of restitution projects each year.

AU Oversight and Partnership Recommendations

The AU Commission’s Department of Social Affairs, Culture Division, is the natural host for the Fund’s secretariat, already overseeing cultural programmes and positioned to integrate the Fund’s activities into Agenda 2063 goals. The AU Specialised Technical Committee on Youth, Culture and Sports, which previously adopted the Model Law on Cultural Property, can periodically review the Fund’s mandate and encourage member states’ buy-in. The Pan-African Parliament’s Committee on Education, Culture, Science and Technology can provide legislative visibility and facilitate return-encouragement resolutions.

The Fund’s governing board would coordinate closely with these bodies, while day-to-day operations,  grants management, and investment could be managed by a small secretariat, potentially headquartered in Addis Ababa. Partnerships with Regional Economic Communities and AUDA-NEPAD can disseminate best practices to national agencies and co-run capacity-building workshops funded by the Endowment.

Specific recommendations include housing the Fund within the AU’s Social Affairs Directorate, establishing a Steering Committee comprising representatives of the AUC, Pan-African Parliament, AUDA-NEPAD, UNESCO, and civil society to advise the Board, and engaging the African Development Bank or similar institutions for technical support in investment management and grant administration.

Conclusion

Reclaiming Africa’s Heritage: The Push for Cultural Reparations and Repatriation

Cultural reparations and the return of stolen artefacts are at the heart of post-colonial justice in Africa. These efforts aim to mend the deep cultural and historical wounds left by colonialism. The African Union’s 2025 theme, “Justice for African People and People of African Descent,” strongly supports this collective mission. It aligns with Agenda 2063’s vision for inclusive and sustainable development, emphasising the urgent need to reclaim looted heritage and restore cultural identity across the continent.

The Challenge of Scattered Heritage

Colonial powers forcibly removed countless African artefacts, often displaying them in European institutions. This has resulted in the vast majority of African heritage being scattered across the globe. While international agreements like the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention offer some legal avenues for recovery, the path to restitution and reparation is fraught with legal, political, and logistical hurdles.

The complexities of this issue are evident in the case studies examined throughout this report. Algeria and Namibia have seen the return of human remains, a powerful symbolic act of reconciliation. However, ongoing disputes persist over iconic artefacts such as Egypt’s Rosetta Stone and Ethiopia’s sacred tabots, highlighting the significant challenges in recovering culturally vital objects.

A Sustainable Solution: The AU Endowment Fund

To overcome these obstacles and ensure lasting success, this report proposes the establishment of an AU-facilitated, continent-wide Endowment Fund. This Fund would provide crucial long-term financial and institutional support for restitution efforts. Its activities would include funding provenance research to trace the origins of artefacts, supporting legal claims and negotiations for their return, facilitating acquisitions when necessary, raising public awareness about the importance of cultural heritage, and strengthening cultural infrastructure within African nations to properly house and care for returned items.

The Fund would be structured as a trust, operating under the AU’s leadership, with a diverse governance board including representatives from member states, independent experts, and civil society. By adopting best practices in investment and transparency, the Endowment Fund would be designed for longevity and maximum impact, providing the sustainable institutional foundation that Africa’s ongoing effort to reclaim its invaluable cultural heritage has long required.