“The first room visited was one which during the day had been seen to be full of boxes, some of which, at all events, contained articles of much value. Here we found those gold masks, whose object it is difficult to divine, made of pure gold hammered into shape. One of these, weighing more than forty-one ounces, represented a ram’s head, and the others the faces of savage men, about half the size of life. Box after box was opened and its contents hastily examined, the more valuable ones being kept, and the others left. Necklaces and bracelets of gold, Aggrey beads, coral ornaments of various descriptions, were heaped together in boxes and calabashes. Silver-plate was carried off, and doubtless much left behind. Swords, gorgeous ammunition-belts, caps mounted in solid gold, knives set in gold and silver, bags of gold-dust and nuggets; carved stools mounted in silver, calabashes worked in silver and in gold, silks embroidered and woven, were all passed in review. The sword presented by her Majesty to the king was found and carried off; and thousands of things were left behind that would be worth fabulous sums in cabinets at home.” (1)
Henry Brackenbury, Secretary to Lord Wolseley, on the ransacking of Asantehene’s palace in 1874 for valuables.
I was sceptical when I heard that the Asantehene was to speak at the British Museum on Asante culture. (2) What could he tell the British about Asante culture which they did not already know or could not easily obtain from the many scholars of Asante culture who are in Britain? After all, many of the leading scholars on Asante culture since time immemorial have been British: Thomas Bowdich, R. S. Rattray, William Tordoff, Tom McCaskie, Ivor Wilks and others. Besides, if this were an academic exercise, it could be performed by one of the many fine scholars at the University of Ghana, Legon and other institutions in Ghana and elsewhere.
I also wondered why the Asantehene was to speak in the British Museum and not in the British Parliament, where most important dignitaries, such as Barack
Obama, spoke on their visit to Britain. When the late Oba of Benin, Erediauwa, sent his brother, Prince Egun Akenzua, to plead for the restitution of Benin bronzes, he spoke at the British Parliament. (3) If the lecture were to be on restitution, surely the Parliament would be the most appropriate place since the invasion of Kumasi in 1874, which the British Government ordered must have been with parliamentary approval. I have learned in my twenty years of dealing with restitution, not trust the British Museum regarding looted artefacts. I presumed a talk by the Asantehene on Asante culture in the museum could only benefit the venerable museum that had become a citadel of stolen artefacts.
Some of my scepticism disappeared when the Asantehene, preceded by his linguists, praise singers, and other members of his entourage, appeared in their splendid, brilliant attire, including many Kente and other clothes made for the celebration of the 25 years of accession of Asantehene Otumfuo Osei Tutu II to Sika Dwa Kofi, the Golden Stool of the Asante nation. His headband, the armbands, and the sandals, all interlaced with gold, spoke of a triumphant king, sure of himself and his cause. There was no doubt from the images we saw that the King had come not to beg the British for anything but had come as reigning King of a proud people to demand the return of treasures the British had stolen from his people who fought the British in five wars from 1823 to 1900. Will the English King also deliver a lecture on English culture in Twi at the Manhyia Palace Museum in Kumase?
The speech of the Asante King was a masterpiece summarising the relationship between Britain and Asante. (4) He recalled the various wars with the British, in which several lives were lost on both sides and in which Asante was finally obliged to accept defeat and British colonial rule.
Osei Tutu II recounted that the demand for the restitution of Asante regalia started as soon as Prempeh I returned from exile in 1924, after 28 years of exile, the first three years in Elmina and Sierra Leone, and later 25 years in Seychelles where the British had sent him. Prempeh had been sent into exiled because he resisted British hegemony and rejected British offer of protectorate status for Asante and sent a delegation to London to negotiate with the British Government . The unsuccessful mission returned to Kumasi and the British started the war five days thereafter. Prempeh II renewed the demand for the return of the Asante regalia in 1946. Opoku Ware II made again a demand on the 100thanniversary of the Sargrenti War of 1874 that was commemorated in 1974 to 'remember the thousands of Ghanaians who died during this invasion' and 'to take stock of the Asante cultural treasures and regalia that were collected by the British forces from the Palace and the Museum or Aban of Kumasi and shipped to Britain and to mobilise national support behind the request of Otumfuo Opoku Ware, the Asantehene, and the Kumasi Traditional Council, to the British Government for the restoration of those treasures.' (5) Osei Tutu II himself had made several appeals to the British but to no avail.
We wish to comment on parts of this historic royal keynote address on Asante Culture and Heritage : Past and Present, delivered on 19 July 2024 at the British Museum. This historic speech will no doubt galvanise many Africans to act with more vigour and provide incentives for restitution.
- "Even so, we do not and cannot pretend that the agreement we have offers the solution to restitution. What it does is to acknowledge the impediments in the path, not in order to submit to it but to find avenues for fruitful engagements while continuing to seek the appropriate rational resolution."
With this statement, the Asantehene makes clear that accepting looted Asante artefacts as loans was only temporary in the hope that they would offer opportunities to seek the appropriate rational resolution. One could surely not consider a loan of looted artefacts to its original owner as a rational or satisfactory solution to the issue of the restitution of stolen artefacts. Further action must follow the loan agreement.
It has been suggested that we need not return the loaned objects.
We reject any suggestion that we do not need to return the artefacts the British loaned to Asante. We oppose this type of conduct. Such a refusal to return a loaned object as required by the loan agreement is lawless conduct that will bring us to the same level as the colonialists who have refused to obey United Nations/UNESCO resolutions since 1973 requiring them to return looted artefacts to their countries of origin. We are neither robbers nor
looters. (6) We would lose the support of many people and States that have always supported the restitution of artefacts looted with colonial violence and power. Moreover, the colonial powers will be delighted since they could suggest we are on no better grounds, legal or moral, than they are in keeping the stolen artefacts for more than a hundred years. The principle here is: pacta sunt servanda—One must observe agreements and treaties freely signed. This principle is the fundamental basis of International Law, and no country can hope to obtain its looted artefacts if it is perceived as not observing agreements. If we do not accept an agreement, we should not sign it. Any suggestion that Manhyia Palace Museum could refuse to return any artefact obtained through an agreement with the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum is a dangerous illusion.
- ‘It remains our unalterable position that articles of cultural importance looted or procured in unethical circumstances through the colonial enterprise be restored to their origins. This is the position of UNESCO, which is clearly endorsed by the Government of France. We are mindful of some residual resistance but in the main, we will contend that all of us in this room are victims of a system in need of updating.’
The Asantehene and other African rulers demand that former colonial States return looted articles acquired under colonial rule with violence or under dubious circumstances. This position is enshrined in UNESCO and United Nations resolutions starting from 1973 and repeated every second year by the United Nations General Assembly in the Resolution entitled Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin Western illegal holders of looted cultural artefacts do not pay any attention to what the world organizations demand. They adopt a lawless attitude, but the position of the United Nations remains unalterable.
We recall in passing that UNESCO and other United Nations bodies that have defended the cultural rights of Africans and Asians have been subjected to devastating attacks by Western States, with some major States leaving the organizations or withholding due payments in attempts to bend the will of the majority of those institutions. When Africans such as Mbow headed these organizations, Western attacks became virulent. UNIDO, United Nations Industrial Development Organization has also had similar experience.
We must look at the position of the French Government with caution. As readers will recall, President Macron, in his historic speech at Ouagadougou on 28 November 2020, spoke about the need to return African artefacts in France to Africa. He mentioned temporary restitution and permanent restitution:
‘I cannot accept that a large share of several African countries' cultural heritage is kept in France. There are historical explanations for it, but there is no valid, lasting and unconditional justification. African heritage cannot solely exist in private collections and European museums. African heritage must be highlighted not only in Paris but also in Dakar, Lagos, and Cotonou; this will be one of my priorities. Within five years I want the conditions to exist for temporary or permanent returns of African heritage to Africa.’ (7)
When we came in the Sarr-Savoy Commission to discuss the terms of reference of the Commission, we decided that temporary restitution did not make much sense, and similarly, permanent restitution was also not very meaningful. We decided to adopt restitution which implied the permanent transfer of full legal rights to the original owner, implying the admission of initial wrongdoing by the seizure of the object. (8)
After President Macron accepted the report of the Commission, and its recommendations, he was faced with the long-established principle of French law, the principle of the inalienability of objects in the State domain. Objects within this category can only be disposed of with specific legislation. Macron convinced the French legislator to pass a particular law that specifically authorised the transfer of twenty-six objects to the Republic of Benin and one object, a sword, to Senegal. (9) The restitution of these twenty-seven objects raised much controversy in France. Macron commissioned yet another report, Martinez report, to recommend passing a general law that would make it unnecessary to seek legislative approval every time restitution was requested. (10) The draft law for a general law was submitted to Parliament but was so criticised that the Government withdrew the proposed legislation. The Conseil d’État rejected the latest attempt by Macron's government to secure a general law . The grounds advanced by the government, the conduct of international relations and cultural cooperation were inadequate to dispense with the rule against alienability. If the highest French administrative court considered these grounds as insufficient to justify an exception to the rule against inalienability, we can be sure that the government will not make a new attempt soon. (11)
The French have not returned any African artefact since 2021 and indeed they appear to be attempting to keep most of the looted artefacts, at any rate, the best of them, such as the statue of Gou. (12) The French still have a long way to go to satisfy the demands of their former colonies. On the other hand, Germany transferred legal rights in 1,300 Benin bronzes to Nigeria and physically handed some twenty-two objects to the African country
3."We are either victims of a system that denies justice or victims of a system that prevents us from administering justice and doing what we know to be the right thing. From both sides, we need sincerity to appeal to our conscience. Nobody disputes the fact that many of the cultural articles at issue were obtained in illegal or unethical circumstances. Can anyone in good conscience sustain the enactment of a law to protect illegality? That has to be a monumental challenge to jurisprudence, and I dare say a challenge to what I unshakeably believe to the British justice."
The Asantehene delivers a challenge to the British Museum and all those who argue that the British Museum Act 1963 prohibits the restitution of looted artefacts. The King accepts this explanation at face value and concludes that we are all victims of this Act. The system denies justice to its victims, like the Asante and all those who claim restitution. It also prevents those like the British Museum who ostensibly would like to administer justice by returning the looted objects to their rightful owners. They cannot do what they know is the right thing to do. The conscience of the British Museum officials and victims face a significant challenge.
We should all help the British Museum in efforts to change the 1963 Act. It is appropriate for victims of the 1963 Act to try and help change that law. But we have to bear in mind that the preventive law, if that is what the British Museum Act of 1963 is (we have argued it is not), then it must be seen as essentially a problem for the British Museum and the British Government. They have to ensure they have a legal system that allows them to fulfil their international obligations. The Asante and other victims of British imperialism and robbery have no duty to provide a just legal system in the British system of Government. They must indeed avoid being seen as interfering in the affairs of Britain. Victims of robbery are not responsible for the functioning of the legal system. We have no political rights in the UK which would enable us to participate in meaningful discussions on the system of Government.
In any case, we should not comfort the British Museum and others for their failure or unwillingness to convince the British Parliament to change the law. The British Museum has never wanted to return African artefacts, as demonstrated by its reaction to demands from Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, and Nigeria. Has the museum ever said it would like to return these artefacts but that it is prevented from doing so by the law? The British Museum officials simply say they are prevented by the law and let demanders assume they would like to return them. Why do they not clearly state they would like to restitute our artefacts if the law permitted this?
4."My sincere hope is that in the fullness of time, sooner than later, state authorities will take steps to review laws contrived to protect illegalities and permit all concerned to apply themselves to the rational resolution of the challenge of restitution."
We should remember that the British Museum Act,1963 was not passed to prevent restitution as the British Museum and its supporters have managed to convince many people. The 1963 Act was partly motivated by the need to regulate and limit the powers of the trustees to sell artefacts under the museum’s control. The museum had sold several Benin treasures. The museum sold in the late fifties Benin artefacts on the open market and also to Nigeria which had been preparing for its independence. At the time of the passing of the act, nobody thought of restitution and the issue was not such a popular topic as it would become later. Nigerians and other Africans had become tired of making demands that were denied or ignored. (13)
Even if we accept that The British Museum and the Victoria &Albert Museum are prevented by statute from restituting looted artefacts, what about other museums and institutions holding looted artefacts that are not subject to such statutes? Why have they not returned the looted Asante objects in their collections? Some institutions such as Aberdeen University and Jesus College, Cambridge, have returned single Benin artefacts to the Oba of Benin. Horniman Museum, London has returned 72 Benin treasures and entered with Nigeria into loan arrangements for the Horniman. Would the Asantehene have to address himself to all museums in the United Kingdom holding Asante treasures looted by the British Army ? Would it not be more logical and in accordance with International Law to expect the British Government, which sent the troops to Asante, to take the responsibility of ensuring that these stolen items are returned to the Asantehene?
Those who have difficulty with restitution have not entirely abandoned the colonial ideology from which the problems arise. Restitution shows the anatomy and diagnosis of the colonial enterprise. Institutions born in colonialism and violence, and which served as handmaiden of British imperialism cannot easily and quickly react to the demise of the colonialism.
British museums could learn from the examples of US museums such as the Fowler Museum or the Stanley Museum that have recently restituted African artefacts. They did not offer loans as the major British museums have shamelessly done but restored full ownership rights to the original African owners. Fowler Museum, assisted by a Ghanaian professor of Musicology at Tufts University, Kwasi Ampene, brought back to Manhyia Palace seven Asante artefacts that the British had looted in 1874. Stanley Museum, assisted by a Nigerian Professor of Art History from the University of Lagos, Peju Layiwola, brought back to the Palace of the Oba of Benin two Benin artefacts that had been looted by the British in 1897. (14)
Would the British restitute looted Asante artefacts without returning looted Benin artefacts? They will tell the Asante that they could not recover their full rights because it would not be fair to the Nigerians. And we know the British concern for fairness.
In the twenty years I have been studying restitution problems, I have not come across an act or writing showing that the British Museum is in anyway genuinely interested or prepared to restitute objects looted under colonialism.
Why do we not have any evidence of British Museum‘s efforts to get the law changed? This museum holds onto the discredited notion of ‘universal museum’ and considers it right that looted African and Asian artefacts are in the British Museum. Where else could they be if not in London? Although the British Museum was not among the original eighteen major museums that signed the notorious Declaration on the Value and Importance of Universal Museums, (2002) it agreed fully with the content of the statement which justified the holding of other peoples’ artefacts by the major world museums. (15)
The recent wave of moral revulsion against colonial violence and racism that led US institutions such as the Smithsonian Institution to adopt a policy of ‘ethical returns,’ and other museums to return objects acquired with violence, does not seem to have affected the British Museum. Even though its then director Hartwig Fischer issued a hypocritical declaration of solidarity with the Black Lives Matter Movement.
The violence, racism and destruction of colonialism could not convince those institutions that served the colonial system and provided it with ideological justification to follow the new ethics in the museum world. Nobody expected the venerable museum that had sent Rivington Holmes,a curator with the invading British army to Ethiopia in 1868, to change its moral values overnight. British Museum notes: He was one of the first people to enter Maqdala with the military force. He participated directly in the plundering. He purchased objects from soldiers and at the official sale of loot on behalf of the British Museum.
Although the British Museum states clearly on its homepage ‘items of regalia and other objects were looted by British troops during three of the Anglo-Asante Wars (1873–4, 1895–6 and 1900–1,’ we still find gold and other items described as ‘found,’ ‘excavated’ at Manhyia palace. If objects have been looted, they cannot be described as excavated and excavated objects cannot be described as looted. We need to know the correct description of the objects so that we classify them accurately in our list of looted Asante artefacts since the British Museum is evidently not interested in informing us about the exact number of looted Asante artefacts it holds. Is this a simple oversight? Or is this part of the museum’s method of never providing full and complete answers but using language that allows several interpretations?
When we inquire about restitution of Benin artefacts by the British Museum, this is the answer we find at the homepage:
‘The Museum has positive relations with the Royal Palace in Benin City and with the National Commission for Museums and Monuments, Nigeria(NCMM).’
‘The British Museum is also a founding member of the Benin Dialogue Group ,a collaborative working bringing together museum directors and delegates from Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom key representatives from Nigeria including the NCMM, the Benin Royal Palace and Edo State government. A central objective for the Group is to establish new museums in Benin City to facilitate permanent displays of objects from the Kingdom of Benin, including significant collections currently in UK and European museums.’ (16)
These and similar statements are useful and interesting, but they do not address the question of restitution. We are left to believe whatever we want.
The British Museum is used to telling only part of the story and providing the public only part of the relevant information. In the recent case of stealing of artefacts from the museum by a senior curator of the museum, the public received at first only part of the story and only gradually got the details. There was reluctance on the part of the management to tell the full story. The then Director of the British Museum, Fischer resigned as a result of the theft scandal by official entrusted with precious treasures.
The evasive language of the British Museum which often gives the impression it is answering a question but in fact does nothing of the sort is well known. When the Pokomo, a people from Kenya requested the museum to return a spiritual drum, Ngadji, a source of power and pride, which had been stolen by a British colonial official who donated it to the Bloomsbury museum, and was kept by the museum in its storage for 111 years, a spokesperson replied:
The British Museum takes its commitment to being a world museum seriously.
A classic example of this evasive style is the exchange of letters in 2007 between Neil Macgregor, then Director of the British Museum and Professor Tunde Babawale, then Director of Centre for Black and African Arts and Civilization(CBAAC),Lagos. Professor Babawale requests in his letter for the return of the ivory hip-mask of Queen-mother Idia in the British Museum for the commemoration of 30th anniversary of FESTAC. Macgregor in his response does not address the request to return the Benin treasure but assures’
‘That the British Museum appreciates the significance of the Benin material in the collections for Nigeria, Africa, and the world, and wishes to make it better understood and more accessible in Africa and worldwide.’(17) The condescension attitude of the British Museum towards its African correspondent is evident.
The habit of giving partial information has apparently been accepted by those who deal with the venerable museum so that many agreements with African institutions are neither published nor available to the public. Thus, we have no idea about the financial aspects and implications of recent agreements with the British Museum. What are the costs involved in the agreement? Who pays for the costs of packing the treasures and their transport? Who pays for the insurance and what company, British or Ghanaian, was used? Who will pay for the costs of the return of the artefacts at the end of the term of the loan? Do African partners of the British Museum have anything to hide? Should dispute arise from agreements and other documents, who is likely to have copies of the relevant agreements? How can African experts discuss meaningfully these questions when relevant documents are not available to them but are most probably at the disposal of British experts?
The demand of the Asantehene for the return of the Asante regalia will no doubt be considered more seriously this time, unlike the treatment accorded to the Asante demand in 1974, where the House of Lords laughed at the idea. One lord even suggested they should return the souls and keep the artefacts. (18) Are we sure about the British Government and the British Museum? Both have been adamant in refusing to return looted artefacts from Asante, Benin, Egypt, Ethiopia and Greece. Most likely, they will offer more loans of artefacts again, hoping that whatever objections the Asante may have, they will accept the loans as time passes. We also observed that at the end of the lecture by the Asantehene, the Director of the British Museum thanked the King for the lecture but did not say anything about the demand for restitution. Was this a matter of politeness? The Director obviously could not give a negative answer in the presence of the King. British institutions have had enough time to consider the issue of restitution at the latest when the Asantehene Nana Opoku Ware II made in 1974 a plea for the return of the Asante Regalia. We know how this demand was received in the British House of Lords.
In his most recent book on restitution, titled, The Empty Showcase Syndrome, Tough Questions about Cultural Heritage from Colonial Regions (2024),Jos Van Beurden, the Dutch expert declared:
‘There is also no progress in bilateral talks between the British Museum and the cultural authorities of Ethiopia, Ghana or Nigeria on the future of the Magdala treasures(confiscated in 1868), Ashanti gold objects(captured in 1874) or the Benin objects ,as far as they are in national museums. All this delay is reminiscent of the comment of an African expert after the release of the aforementioned 2002 Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums. He saw the blow-up by major museums in Europe as rearguard action.With hindsight he was right.’ (19)
5. 'I stand ready in the spirit of international harmony to invite the world to Kumasi for a global conference to seek universal consensus on the peaceful and rational restitution of illegally procured cultural objects."
The British Museum and the British Government will no doubt welcome an international conference. They will use that occasion to propagate other ideas, such as the British Museum becoming a lending library and a training centre for museum officials. For this purpose, they will surely need the looted artefacts.
Whatever may happen between now and the proposed Kumase Conference, we should make it clear to the British that we are no longer accepting loans. A loan is a shameful method imposed by a proud and arrogant wrongdoer who seeks to avoid apologizing for violent wrongful act and tries to escape any obligation of reparation or compensation for damages after one hundred and fifty years of wrongful detention of the treasures of another culture. A loan eases the bad conscience of the wrongdoer, who can pretend he has restored the stolen item when, in fact, he still claims its ownership. We should not help them with their devious tactic of avoiding the facts of history. We must keep distinct right and wrongful conducts. Restitution of our looted artefacts will be an intergenerational task, and so we must set principles that will not complicate matters for future generations.
Western Governments and museums are very reluctant to return the thousands of treasures they have stolen from Africa. At most, they will return a few artefacts, in ‘homeopathic doses,’ to maintain relationships but not as a response to calls to do the right thing. They have not entirely accepted the end of European colonialism and Western domination.
We should note that both the French and the British were able to enact legislation that would facilitate the restitution of artefacts looted by Nazis or fascist regimes.
Recent French law provides ‘Dérogation au principe d’inaliénabilité’
a derogation from the principle of inalienability for properties seized under the antisemitic laws of the Vichy regime between 1933 and 1945. (20)
The British Parliament passed The Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 'to confer power to return certain cultural objects on grounds relating to events occurring during the Nazi era'. (21)
We note that two proposed legislations, also based on the Rapport Martinez, concerning restitution of Nazi confiscated objects and the return of human remains were accepted by the French Parliament without difficulty. Only the legislation that would have facilitated the restitution of looted African artefacts posed problems for the French legislator.
One major difference between seizures by Nazis/fascists and those by colonialists is that the victims of Nazi spoliation were mainly white. In contrast, the victims of colonialism were mostly Black and Brown. Of course, if you think colonialism was a Boy Scout adventure, you may tend to see this as a gross comparison. It is true though that Baden Powell, famous in the Anglo-Asante Wars, was also the Founder of the Boy Scouts movement.
We are not interested in comparisons of victimology, but we cannot forget Aimé Césaire's declaration in Discourse on Colonialism:
"It is Nazism, yes, but that before they were its victims, they were its accomplices; that they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimised it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole edifice of Western, Christian civilisation in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack." (22)
Discussions about looted artefacts have been ongoing for decades, and Osei Tutu II's lecture explained how previous Asante Kings had tried to recover the stolen artefacts but to no avail. Other incentives, such as leaving the Commonwealth, must be presented if the British are to be moved. Cessation or reduction of trade must also be considered if anything concrete is to come out of an international conference in Kumase.
Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands and other Western States as well as their major museums should also be invited. As holders of looted African art, they have a moral and legal obligation to participate in the restitution process which is eminently an international matter. The Kumase Conference on Restitution of Looted Artefacts should preferably be organised in conjunction with the United Nations and UNESCO.
There seems to be an embarrassment or hesitation in recent discussions on restitution, to raise the issue of reparation for wanton damage done to African palaces and towns, as well as to the artefacts themselves. Kumase for instance was burnt down by the invading British army although, on the instruction of the Asante King ,no military resistance was opposed to the British army.
Should African owners not receive compensation for loss of earnings when most Western museums charge or charged fees for displaying our looted artefacts or for loaning them to other institutions? Let us make no mistake. The looting of African artefacts for Western States and museums represent an enormous transfer of economic value to Western countries.
All evidence so far show that Western States and their museums are not in any hurry to return to Africans the thousands of artefacts they stole with violence under the colonial system. Recent cases of restitution are few and should not delude us. The ruling classes in the Western world have no sympathy for Africans whom they have exploited over centuries and whose natural resources they still cheaply exploit. Some Western countries are even driving away Africans with violence from their countries as shown by recent anti-African demonstrations in the United Kingdom. Would these people understand
how we feel about their stealing our artefacts?
‘We, Europeans, who have received and transmitted and continue to transmit these objects, are on the side of the conquerors. To a certain extent, this is also a ‘heritage that weighs us down.’ But there is no fatality. The good news is that in 2017 the history of Europe being what it is and has also been for centuries, a history of enmity between our nations of bloody wars and discriminations painfully overcome after the Second World War, we have within ourselves the sources and resources to understand the sadness, or the anger or hatred of those who, in other tropics, much further away, poorer, weaker, and have been subjected in the past to the intensive absorbing power of our continent. Or to put it simply: it would be sufficient today to make a very tiny effort of introspection and a slight step aside for us to enter into empathy with the dispossessed peoples.’’ (23)
Bénédicte Savoy, Objets du désir, désir d’objets, Leçon inaugurale, Collège de France,
NOTES
1. Henry Brackenbury and Harry Cooper, The Ashanti War V2: A Narrative Prepared from The Official Documents by Permission of Major-General Sir Garnet Wolseley (1874) pp. 240-241, William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London. The number of items looted from the Asantehene’s palace was so great that Henry M. Stanley who accompanied the Punitive Force ends his list with the phrase: “And so on, ad infinitum, of valuable, curious, and worthless things heaped together in every room. An old curiosity-shop could not exhibit a more miscellaneous variety of things than the interior of the king’s bedchambers, his private apartments and storerooms, contained.” Henry M. Stanley, Coomassie and Magdala: The Story of Two British Campaigns in Africa, Rediscovery Books, Edition of 2006. p. 234.
2. Asantehene to Deliver Lecture in London https://manhyiapalace.org/asantehene-to-deliver-lecture-in-london/
Otumfuo to deliver a lecture on Ashanti culture in the UK https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Otumfuo-to-deliver-a-lecture-on-Ashanti-culture-in-the-UK-1925652
Otumfuo to deliver a lecture on Ashanti culture in the UK
https://ghanaguardian.com/otumfuo-to-deliver-a-lecture-on-ashanti-culture-in-the-uk
3. Appendix 21. The Case of Benin: Memorandum submitted by Prince Edun Akenzua ,https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmcumeds/371/371ap27.htm
4. The Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, delivered a historic lecture at the British Museum in the UK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtCllKrzVEc
Asantehene’s Royal Lecture at the British Museum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_hUFdti0YQ
Asante King Demands British Museum to Return Priceless Gold to Ghana
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIEQ3vME18
5. The Call for the Return of the Asante Regalia, Issued by the Centenary Committee,1974.
6. K. Opoku, Is the Museum of Fine Arts Boston Serious About the Restitution of Looted African Artefacts?
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1128195/is-the-museum-of-fine-arts-boston-serious-about.html
7. Emmanuel Macron’s speech at the University of Ouagadougou 28 November 2017 https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2017/11/28/emmanuel-macrons-speech-at-the-university-of-ouagadougou French text: Discours Emmanuel Macron à l'université de Ouagadougou. elysee-module-829-fr.pdf
8. Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy, Report on the Restitution of African Cultural Heritage, Toward a New Relational Ethics. Sarr-Savoy Report.pdf - Google Drive,
K. Opoku, Further Comments on Sarr-Savoy Report on Restitution https://www.modernghana.com/news/912541/further-comments-on-sarr-savoy-report-on-restituti.html
Report on the restitution of African cultural heritage
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Report_on_the_restitution_of_African_cultural_heritage
9. K. Opoku, Restitution Day: Remembrance and Reckoning
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1193895/restitution-day-remembrance-and-reckoning.html
10. K. Opoku, Does the Martinez Report Constitute a Pre-Announced Burial of African Cultural Artefacts in French Museums?
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1230672/does-the-martinez-report-constitute-a-pre-announce.html
11. « la conduite des relations internationales et la coopération culturelle », ne justifient pas une dérogation aux dispositions du code général des propriétés de l’Etat, qui déclare inaliénables les biens culturels entrés dans les collections publiques par don ou par legs.
https://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2024/03/26/le-conseil-d-etat-releve-un-frein-aux-restitutions-d-uvres-d-art-acquises-par-la-france-dans-des-conditions-abusives_6224262_3246.html K. Opoku, Do French Museums Still Need to Study Looted African Treasures? https://www.modernghana.com/news/1315012/do-french-museums-still-need-to-study-looted-afric.html
12. The statue of Gou, the god of war and metallurgy of the Fon, Benin Republic, which the French looted in 1892 from the former French colony, Dahomey is still in the Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac Paris, despite the fact that President Talon has asked for it several times. Apparently, this statue admired by great French artists, such as Picasso, Apollinaire is one of the African artefacts are determined to keep in France because of its modernist style. See K. Opoku, Restitution Day: Remembrance and Reckoning
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1193895/restitution-day-remembrance-and-reckoning.html
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1230672/does-the-martinez-report-constitute-a-pre-announce.html
Maureen Murphy, « Du champ de bataille au musée : les tribulations d’une sculpture fon », Les actes de colloques du musée du quai Branly Jacques Chirac [En ligne], 1 | 2009, mis en ligne le 28 juillet 2009, consulté le 04 août 2024. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/actesbranly/213 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/actesbranly.213
13. British Museum sold Benin Bronzes https://www.forbes.com/2002/04/03/0403conn.html
BBC News Benin Bronzes sold to Nigeria http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1896535.stm
British Museum And Victoria And Albert Museum Loan Looted Asante Artefacts To Asante /Ghana: Where Is The Morality?
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1295729/british-museum-and-victoria-and-albert-museum-loan.html
K. Opoku, Is the de-accession policy of the British Museum a farce? https://www.elginism.com/similar-cases/the-british-museums-de-acessioning-policy/20080516/1114/
Charlotte Woodhead’ Proposals to Reform the British Museum Act Continue to Fall Under the Shadow of the Marbles
https://ial.uk.com/british-museum-act-marbles/
British Committee for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, https://parthenonuk.com/component/tags/tag/british-museum-act-1963-amendment-bill
’’However, what is known is that the British Museum sold 21 duplicate prints in 1986 and a duplicate set of Hiroshige woodblock prints in 1995. Some 2,600 duplicate coins, medals and badges and 117 duplicate western prints have been exchanged for similar material since 1972. Two bronze plaques from Benin were exchanged for a unique bronze horseman in the style of the Lower Niger Bronze industry in 1972. A relic of cannibalism, judged unfit to be retained in the Museum's collection was exchanged with Fiji for a collection of prehistoric sherds in 1975. In 1991, an English court recognised the legal personality of an Indian temple claiming the recovery of an idol, notwithstanding that it was incapable of accepting formally legal personality under English law.’’
14. K. Opoku, Restitution with Dignity and Humility: Stanley Museum, University of Iowa, Returns Benin Artefacts to the Oba of Benin https://www.modernghana.com/news/1328989/restitution-with-dignity-and-humility-stanley.html The Stanley Museum restitution had world-wide echo: The Art newspaper, Iowa museum becomes first in US to return looted Benin bronzes to royal ruler (theartnewspaper.com)
Artnews ,Iowa's Stanley Museum of Art First in the US to Return Benin Bronzes (artnews.com)
Artnet, Iowa Museum Makes Historic Repatriation of Benin Bronzes (artnet.com)
Hyperallergic, Iowa Paves Path For Museums with Landmark Restitution of Benin Bronzes (hyperallergic.com)
The Africa Report, Nigeria: Oba of Benin receives two Benin bronzes from US museum - The Africa Report.com
British Museum And Victoria And Albert Museum Loan Looted Asante Artefacts To Asante /Ghana: Where Is The Morality?
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1295729/british-museum-and-victoria-and-albert-museum-loan.html
15. See Tom Flynn, The Universal Museum: A Valid Model for the 21st Century? https://www.academia.edu/20053839/The_Universal_Museum_A_Valid_Model_for_the_21st_Century
A selection of a few of articles by K. Opoku on the ‘universal museum.’ Declaration On The Importance And Value Of Universal Museums: Singular Failure Of An Arrogant Imperialist Project https://www.modernghana.com/news/441891/declaration-on-the-importance-and-value-of-universal-museums.html
Is The Declaration on the Value and Importance of the “universal Museums” now Worthless? Comments on Imperialist ,museology
Defence of “ Universal Museums ” Through Omissions and Irrelevancies
Love the “universal Museum” and Despise the Others: Comment on article by Tristram Hunt
https://www.modernghana.com/news/173717/1/love-the-universal-museum-and-despise-the-others-c.html
Affirmations and Declarations: Review of James Cuno's Museums Matter. https://www.modernghana.com/news/378234/affirmations-and-declarations-review-of-james-cunos-museum.html
17. Peju Layiwola, Benin 1897.com Art and the Restitution Question,
Wy Art Editions, Ibadan, 2010, p.204
18. Annex I below, Debate in House of Lords.
19. Jos van Beurden, The Empty Showcase Syndrome, Tough Questions about Cultural Heritage from Colonial Regions 2024, Amsterdam University Press, p.126.
21. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/16
22. Aimé Césaire, Discourse on Colonialism, Trans. Joan Pinkham. French text, Discours sur le colonialisme, Présence Africaine, Paris, 1955.
23. ‘ Nous, les Européens, qui avons reçu et transmis et continuons de transmettre ces objets, nous sommes du côté des vainqueurs. D’une certaine manière, cela aussi, c’une ‘héritage qui nous écrase’. Mais il n’y a pas de fatalité. La bonne nouvelle c’est qu’en 2017 l’histoire de l’Europe ayant été ce qu’elle a été aussi pendant des siècles, une histoire d’inimitiés entre nos nations, de guerres sanglantes et de discriminations péniblement surmontées après la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, nous avons à l’intérieur de nous-mêmes les sources et les ressources pour comprendre la tristesse ou la colère, ou la haine de ceux qui ,sous d’autres tropiques ,plus loin, plus pauvres, plus faibles, ont été soumis par le passé à l’intense pouvoir absorbant, de notre continent. Ou, pour dire les choses simplement : il nous suffit aujourd’hui d’un minuscule effort d’introspection et d’un léger pas de côté pour entrer en empathie avec les dépossédés.’
Bénédicte Savoy, Leçon inaugurale. Objets du désir, désir d’objets https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/les-cours-du-college-de-france/lecon-inaugurale-de-benedicte-savoy-objets-du-desir-desirs-d-objets-5804543
Bénédicte Savoy, Objets du désir, désir d’objets. Collège de France/Fayard,2017, p.75
ANNEX I
DEBATE IN BRITISH HOUSE OF LORDS ON ASANTE DEMAND FOR RESTITUTION IN 1974.
HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1970s → 1974 → December 1974 → 10 December 1974 → Lords Sitting ASHANTI REGALIA
HL Deb 10 December 1974 vol 355 cc534-5534 2.40 p.m. Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, with a view to fostering Commonwealth relations, they will use their good offices to +facilitate the early return of the Ashanti regalia to the Ghana nation.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS) My Lords, the regalia is not at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government. The majority of it forms part of the collections of the British Museum and the Wallace Collection. Neither body may legally dispose of its exhibits.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU My Lords, are the Government aware that I was aware that these relics are in fact in the British Museum and the Wallace Collection, and that that is why I asked them to use their good offices to facilitate their return? In view of the fact that these relics are, and were originally, war booty captured by the British Army, are Her Majesty's Government aware of the very deep feelings of the Ashanti people about the return of these sacrosanct objects, which are supposed to contain the soul of the Ashanti people? Is it also a fact that a special Act of Parliament may be needed to release these objects from the British Museum; and, if so, will Her Majesty's Government facilitate the passage of such a Bill?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS My Lords, I certainly could not give an indication that we would seek the passage of such legislation—nor, indeed, could I advise that this should be so—because of the very far-ranging complications that might ensue from dealing with a case of this kind, for thereupon a great variety of other cases would immediately arise for consideration. On the question whether the Ghanaian Government have approached us, the position is that the Kumasi Traditional Council of Chiefs have petitioned Her Majesty's Government on this matter. We have replied in the terms of my reply to the noble Lord's Question, and so far, they have not commented on that reply.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to tread very warily when it comes to returning booty which we have collected in this country, because the process might turn into rather a striptease?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS My Lords, perhaps the term "booty" is not quite appropriate, especially in this case. This is part of an indemnity which was agreed by the former King of Ashanti, the proceeds of which were devoted to compensation for dependants of British troops killed in the rather horrific conditions in that part of the world at that time. I sympathise very much with the motives behind the Question—namely, that we should do everything possible to promote improved Commonwealth relations—but I do not think this is quite the best way of going about it. Lord GISBOROUGH My Lords, would it not be possible to keep the booty and return the souls?
ANNEX II
Major R. S. S. Baden-Powell
THE DOWNFALL OF PREMPEH
A DIARY OF LIFE WITH THE NATIVE LEVY IN ASHANTI 1895-96
(Chapter XIII. http://pinetreeweb.com/bp-prempeh-13.htm )
THE DOWNFALL.
10th January.
NOR were these long in beginning. Six o’clock had been named as the hour for Prempeh and all his chiefs to be on the palaver-ground. This was done, well knowing that he might then be expected about seven, and it was desirable to make an early start with the ceremony, in order not to keep the white troops exposed to the sun in the middle of the day. Soon after seven o’clock the troops began to form up on the parade-ground, but still no sign of any of the Ashantis coming; nor even was there any of the usual preliminary drumming that invariably goes on to summon all the retainers who usually form the procession.
Nearly two hours’ grace had been given him; it looked as though Prempeh did not mean coming. The order was accordingly given for the Special Service Corps, assisted by the native levy, to surround the palace and the queen-mother’s house, and to bring Prempeh and the queen to the Governor. Captain D. Stewart went in to " draw " them.
The native levy, in view of such course becoming necessary, had during the previous day cut away the bush adjoining the palace enclosure, and thus the cordon was enabled rapidly to take up its position to close every outlet.
In a very few minutes the king was carried forth in his state cradle with a small following, and, escorted by the troops, he proceeded hurriedly to the palaver-ground. The queen-mother, similarly escorted, followed shortly after, as well as all the chiefs. They were then marshalled in a line, with a limited number of attendants each, in front of the Governor, Mr. Maxwell, C.M.G. who was seated on a dais, together with Colonel Sir Francis Scott, K.C.B., and Colonel Kempster, D.S.O.
A square of British troops was formed all round, backed by Houssas and the native levy.
Then the doom of the nation was pronounced in a set-scene, and amid dramatic incidents such as could not fail to impress both natives and Europeans alike.
Through the medium of interpreters – Mr. Vroom, Secretary for Native Affairs, acting for the Governor; Albert Ansah, for the king the conditions of the treaty to be imposed upon the Ashantis were demanded of them.
The first of these was that Prempeh should render submission to the Governor, in accordance with the native form and custom signifying abject surrender. This is a ceremony which has only once before been carried out between the Ashantis and a British Governor, namely, Governor Rowe. On that occasion the king deputed officers of his court to perform the actual ceremony; but in this case it was insisted that the king must himself personally carry it out.
Accordingly, with bad enough grace, he walked from his chair, accompanied by the queen mother, and, bowing before Mr. Maxwell, he embraced his knees. It was a little thing, but it was a blow to the Ashanti pride and prestige such as they had never suffered before.
Then came the demand for payment of the indemnity for the war. Due notice had been previously given, and the Ashantis had promised to pay it; but unless the amount, or a fair proportion of it, could now be produced, the king and his chiefs must be taken as guarantee for its payment.
The king could produce about a twentieth part of what had been promised. Accordingly, he was informed that he, together with his mother and chiefs, would now be held as prisoners, and deported to the Gold Coast.
The sentence moved the Ashantis very visibly. Usually it is etiquette with them to receive all news, of whatever description, in the gravest and most unmoved indifference; but here was Prempeh bowing himself to the earth for mercy, as doubtless many and many a victim to his lust for blood had bowed in vain to him, and around him were his ministers on their feet, clamouring for delay and reconsideration of the case. The only "man" among them was the queen.
In vain. Each chief found two stalwart British non-commissioned officers at his elbow, Prempeh being undercharge of Inspector Donovan. Their arrest was complete.
But there was still an incident coming to complete the scene. The two Ansahs, although they held a large hand in causing the trouble between the British and Ashantis, appear in their own country to have little or no influence with the people, and, indeed, were looked on with jealousy and suspicion. These were surveying the scene – their handiwork-with a somewhat curious look, half amused, half nonplussed, when the Governor added to his remarks the suggestion that the present might be a suitable occasion for the arrest of these two gentlemen on a charge of forgery; and before they had fully realised between them that the charge was actually being preferred against them, they found that Mr. Donovan had adroitly handcuffed them wrist to wrist, and the scene was complete.
During the performance of this act another had been quietly preparing behind the scenes. Parties of the native levy had been withdrawn from the parade-ground, and were added to the cordon already drawn round the palace. All was silent there, and all the many doors were locked. But a path from the jungle leading to the back door, also locked, brought one within sound of the buzz of many men talking within, and of the soughing of bellows of smelting fires. At the close of the palaver on the parade-ground, two companies of the West Yorkshire Regiment, under Captain Walker, were detailed to take possession of the palace, clear it of all people inside, and to collect and make an inventory of all property found inside.
One company was accordingly sent to stiffen the cordon of native levies, and with the other company I proceeded to effect an entrance by a back way, which I had previously reconnoitred.
There had been reports of the palace being undermined, and it was natural to expect that if this was so, the main entrance would be the spot selected for the mine, and that at any rate the place where the inmates were collected would be safe. Accordingly, making its way through the deserted garden, this company proceeded to the back entrance, and burst open the door. This opened into a large courtyard. Not a soul to be seen! nEverything silent. Two painted doors in a side wall were kicked in by soldiers, and immediately after Tommy Atkins’ persuasive voice was sounding, " Come out of that, you blatherskiting idiot; d’ye think I want to eat you? " and so on, as a frightened flock of natives were dragged out into the daylight. They were placed in the courtyard under sentries, while the remainder of the company proceeded to search every corner of every court and alley of the palace – and these were many – for further occupants. A hundred or two of these were taken, and then the work of collecting valuables and property was proceeded with.
There could be no more interesting, no more tempting work than this. To poke about in a barbarian king’s palace, whose wealth has been reported very great, was enough to make it so. Perhaps one of the most striking features about it was that the work of collecting the treasures was entrusted to a company of British soldiers, and that it was done most honestly and well, without a single case of looting. Here was a man with an armful of gold-hilted swords, there one with a box full of gold trinkets and rings, another with a spirit-case full of bottles of brandy, yet in no instance was there any attempt at looting.
It need not be supposed that all the property found in the palace was of great value. There were piles of the tawdriest and commonest stuff mixed indiscriminately with quaint, old, and valuable articles, a few good brass dishes, large metal ewers, Ashanti stools, old arms, etc. But a large amount of valuables known to belong to the king had disappeared, probably weeks previously – such as his celebrated dinner service of Dutch silver, his golden hat, his golden chair of state, and, above all, the royal stool, the emblem par excellence of the King of Ashanti.
These were all probably hidden, together with his wives, in various hamlets in the remote bush. The " loot" which we collected was sold by public auction, excepting golden valuables, which were all sent home to the Secretary of State.
The term "palace" has merely been used to denote the residence of the king. In reality there is very little that is palatial about it. It consists of a collection of the usual wattle-and-daub huts, with high walls and enormous high-pitched thatched roofs; endless courts, big and little, succeed each other, with narrow entries between, and with little or no attempt at architectural design or ornamentation.
The foundations of the old palace, built on more substantial principles, and destroyed in the last campaign, are still to be seen in the centre of the present place in a disused court.
Finding so little of real value in the palace, it was hoped that some treasure might be discovered in the sacred fetish-houses at Bantama, the burial-place of the kings of Ashanti, about a mile out of Bantama. This place had also been piqueted, but all its priests had disappeared previously, and when we broke in, only one harmless old man was found residing there. No valuables – in fact, little of any kind was found in the common huts that form the sacred place. In the big fetish building, with its enormous thatched roof, when burst open, we only found a few brass coffers – all empty! The door, which was newly sealed with mortar, showed no signs of having been quite freshly closed up, and it may therefore be inferred that the treasure had been removed some weeks previously.
Then, in accordance with orders, we set the whole of the fetish village in flames, and a splendid blaze it made. The great fetish-tree, in whose shade hundreds of victims have been sacrificed, was blown up with gun-cotton, as also were the great fetish-trees on the Kumassi parade-ground. Among the roots of these there lie the skulls and bones of hundreds, and possibly of thousands, of victims to the regime which to-day has so dramatically been brought to a close.
The Asantehene in the British Museum delivering the historical keynote address on Asante Culture on 19 July,2024.
Nana Bonsu Aban, Kumase.
A stone building within the Asantehene’s palace, built in 1822 and destroyed by the British Expeditionary Force on 6th February 1874. The Dutch at Elmina provided stones and labour. The Aban served to display the collection of the precious objects of the king and thus served to display the precious arts and crafts of the king. Kathy Cunow, Palace, Fort, and Museum
Instruments of Power and Status: Construction and Destruction https://access.thebrightcontinent.org/items/show/12
Centenary of the Sargrenti War, The Call for the Return of the Asante Regalia, Issued by the Centenary Committee
Gold mask,20cm in height weighing 1.36kg of pure gold seized by the British from Kumase, in 1874 and now in Wallace Collection, London, United Kingdom. Wallace Collection states that this is the most important and famous work of Asante art. Yet they are not worried that this work is not available to Asante and Ghanaian artists. How would European art have developed if the famous and important European artworks were kept in Africa?
Asantehene Otumfuo Nana Kwasi Agyeman Prempeh I, 1888-1931.
Asantehene Otumfuo Nana Osei Agyeman Prempeh II,1931-1970.
Asantehene, Otumfuo Nana Opoku Ware II,1970-1999.
Asantehene Otumfuo Nana Osei Tutu II,1999 to the present.
Wooden Stool of Asantehene Kofi Kairkari looted in 1874, now in Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sheet brass treasure box on wheels, Pitt-Rivers Museum ,Oxford, United Kingdom.
Royal Chair of King Prempeh I, seized in 1896 by Baden Powell and the British Army, now in Royal Signals Museum, Blandford, United Kingdom.
Asante Soul disc, Kumase, now in the British Museum, London, United Kingdom.
Gold amulet case, Kumase, now in the British Museum, London. United Kingdom.
The Submission of King Prempeh, the Final Act of Humiliation. Illustration for The Graphic, 29 February 1896.
After the defeat of Asante in1896,the British ordered the King to come
before them to make abject submission in accordance with native custom. The Asante King removed his crown and sandals, moved forward with the Queen-Mother to perform the act of humiliation before the platform where were seated Sir Francis Scott, Colonel Kempster and Mr Maxwell. The Asante nobles knelt and embraced the boots and legs of the Englishmen whilst the Asantes looked on with amazement at the abject abasement of their King and Queen-Mother. See https://www.maryevans.com/history/king-prempeh-i-s-humiliation-1896-10512481https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Submission_of_King_Prempeh_I.jpg
Election 2024: God will overturn any doom prophecy against NPP– Diana Asamoah
I’m not crazy about marriage — Nigerian actress Ini Edo
London Premiere of 'The Storm' Movie flops with disappointing turnout, low ratin...
East Legon tragedy: Bishop Salifu Amoako’s son involved in fatal accident
US Court issues arrest warrant for Nigerian Air Peace CFO Ejiroghene Eghagha
Thousands throng Tamale North as Alhasssan Suhuyini launches 2024 campaign
Election 2024: Only NDC can fix Ghana’s broken economy – Mahama
Rationalise pensions for PNDC victims, Lt. Colonels – VAG to Defence Ministry
NPP, NDC supporters clash at Mamobi, two persons shot
PHOTOS: Ghana’s Black Stars arrive in Libya ahead of second meeting with Sudan –...
