"There is still such self-hatred that we evaluate the different options available to us by systematically choosing what comes from the West. If that's the best choice, okay! But this is not always the case. It is essential to recover self-esteem by rediscovering in our cultural referents what makes our humanity
grow. This does not mean that we exclude the other, but it is important to rebuild the way we look at our intellectual, cultural, linguistic and spiritual references. From then on, we will have greater freedom to choose, to welcome what enriches us. Borrowing must be an act of freedom and not the product of cultural imperialism. Felwine Sarr
Readers may recall that in our account of Restitution Day 2024, we mentioned that the respected and well-known Senegalese philosopher Souleyman Bachir Diagne was scheduled to give a series of lectures at the Louvre in Paris towards the end of 2024. (1) We wondered if he would repeat the controversial ideas about his theory of mutating artefacts, which would justify the keeping of looted African artefacts in the Louvre. (2) We have now listened to the series of lectures Diagne delivered at the Louvre last December 2024, and we have no reason to drop any of the criticisms we made of this theory. (3)
We shall not comment on the whole series of his lectures, which are worth listening to and are recommended. We will briefly comment on some points related to restitution, bearing in mind his lecture at the Ethnology Museum in Geneva and the interview he gave to La CroixInternational.
The audience in the Louvre greeted Diagne at the beginning of each lecture with tremendous applause. Presumably, the French audience was pleased and flattered by what it heard in all the lectures. But would an African audience react similarly when it hears that looted African artefacts, such as Gou, the Fon god of war, are at home in the Louvre?
The theory of the mutation of African artefacts briefly states that African artefacts, which have been uprooted from Africa and sent to France, have undergone transformation, altering their nature. They now bear different cosmologies from what they previously represented. They can rightfully stay where they are. Thus, the statue of Gou, for instance, which the French stole during their war of colonization in Dahomey in 1892-94 and brought to France, was among the African artworks that influenced the French vanguardists, such as Picasso and Apollinaire. Apollinaire stated that the statue of Gou was the most surprising and graceful artwork in Paris. But does the admiration of an African statue by French artists justify the keeping of a looted object that is an essential figure in the culture and religion of a people whom the French have exploited and subjugated with excessive colonial violence? Does the contribution of African artefacts to modern art justify their illegal detention in France?
To hear a leading African intellectual and philosopher state that African artefacts, such as the statute of Gou, looted with great violence by the French colonialists, are at home in the Palais des Sessions in the Louvre, Paris, sounds like a total denial of all that we know about French colonial rule and what the Sarr-Savoy stated about colonial plunder of African artefacts. Michel Leiris might as well not have written Afrique fantôme. If the fate of African art is inseparable from the fate of the African, as Aimé Césaire declared, how come African arts are chez eux in Paris, France, and Africans are not chez eux in Paris, France?
The Senegalese philosopher's theory of object mutants has raised serious doubts about his stance on the restitution of looted African artefacts in France. Indeed, another Senegalese writer, Aoua Bocar Ly-Tall, has published an article with the pointed title, Souleymane Bachir Diagne Plaide-t-il Pour La Non -Restitution Des Œuvres D'art Africains? Dr. Ly-Tall was surprised, as we all were, by the interview Diagne gave to the French journal La Croix International and writes:
"To the question of Madame Meunier, do you feel confronted here with a colonial narrative, which celebrates a France at the centre of the worlds that some persons reject? Souleyman Diagne replies "I used to hold this idea about Louvre until the inauguration, in 2000 […. From then on, I began to reconsider this notion […] and to say to myself that, in a certain way, this Pavillon des Sessions received these objects at their home.'? (4)
Diagne declares in the interview with La Croix International that the decolonial demand for restitution of all looted artefacts is violence: "The violent, decolonial stance that says everything African must be returned is absurd. It erases the narrative of how these objects found their place elsewhere and nullifies the relationship that has been established."
We must assert that to request the return of artefacts stolen with great violence under the colonial regime cannot be considered violent. It is a call for reparatory action. Should we not ask for the return of our looted objects?
Diagne cites the famous plea of Africa's most illustrious son, Ahmadou Makhtar M'Bow, from Senegal, to support his view that African artefacts in the Louvre have grown roots in France and are capable of bearing other cosmologies different from what they originally carried:
"A Plea for the return of an irreplaceable cultural heritage to those who created it "(1978).
'They know, of course, that art is for the world and are aware of the fact that this art, which tells the story of their past and shows what they really are, does not speak to them alone. They are happy that men and women elsewhere can study and admire the work of their ancestors. They also realize that certain works of art have for too long played too intimate a part in the history of the country to which they were taken for the symbols linking them with that country to be denied, and for the roots they have put down to be severed.' (6)
M'Bow's famous plea has been used by those who support the restitution of looted African artefacts, as well as by those who oppose the idea or are lukewarm about it. Even the director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, which holds the Magdala treasures looted by the British in 1868 and refuses to return them to Ethiopia, cites M'Bow's famous plea. (7) But the very title of the document, A Plea for the Return of an Irreplaceable Cultural Heritage to those who created it, as well as the context in which it was made in 1978, against the resistance of former colonial powers to return objects, clearly indicated that M'Bow, then Director-General of UNESCO, was more concerned with the artefacts being returned to Africa rather than furnishing support for retaining the looted treasures in European museums. M'Bow would have rejected any suggestion that African objects, such as the statue of the Fon god of war and metallurgy, Gou, should remain in Paris because of the statue's role in influencing French vanguardists.
For the preparations of his Louvre lectures, Diagne went to the Palais des Sessions, where he was alone with the sculptures. He greeted and spoke with them in Wolof, and they responded to him in the same language. I have visited the Palais at least ten times. Still, I have never dared to speak to the precious sculptures there, even metaphorically, partly because there were always other people present, mostly Westerners in the Palais. I could never be sure if my Twi, Fanti, Hausa, or Yoruba would not have created suspicion about my intentions there. Those around might have been reminded of Mwazulu Diyabanza, who will inform the brave warrior and the youth of Benin in
Dahomey, film by Wati Diop, that the god Gou is now French and at home in the Palais des Sessions, Paris, France?
I did, however, look at the faces of the statues and could discern from them a lost gaze in the lighted halls. These African personifications seemed lost in the large, strange halls and exuded melancholy at their fate. They would have asked me several questions if I had spoken to them. They would have asked how long they would be in this strange hall and country and wondered whether a hundred years were not long enough for colonial detention. Gou, the Fon god of war, would have surely asked me about Dahomey's fearless and fierce.
Amazonas, whether they would come and free him or whether they have abandoned him completely.
The philosopher seems to approve of the agreement between Germany and Nigeria, in which formerly looted Benin artefacts were loaned to Germany. The loan to Germany is for a ten-year term. There is no agreement between France and the Republic of Benin to keep the statue of Gou in the Palais des Sessions. None of those seeking the restitution of looted African artefacts object to arrangements that allow the Western States to retain some artefacts for a brief period provided this is done with the consent of the African owners.
Diagne's view on keeping Gou in France aligns with the opinion of Jean-Luc Sanchez, whose report on looted African artefacts in France, "Shared Heritage: Universality, Restitutions, and Circulation of Works of Art," we have described as announcing the burial of the best African art in France.
'One of the first works that could fall into this category of "shared heritage" could be the statue of the god Gou: the history of this work tends to show that it would not meet the criteria justifying restitution (it is not a seizure because the work would have been voluntarily abandoned). It is a work that is important for the history of Benin, but for more than a century, it has been in France, inspired artists, and exhibited in international exhibitions. It has therefore become a work rich in this plural history. Its exhibition in Benin through this "shared heritage" scheme would undoubtedly make it possible to meet Beninese expectations and to make a new contribution to cultural cooperation with this African country. (8)
Martinez informs us that he drew on the ideas of Souleymane Bachir Diagne to develop the concept of shared heritage, which would justify retaining a category of looted African artefacts in France rather than returning them to their countries of origin. Some of these artefacts could be sent to the former colonies as deposits:
"Thus, we propose that the future framework law lay the foundations
for an original mechanism to respond in the future to certain requests concerning symbolic objects, which have become 'mixed-race' or 'rhizome-objects,' to use the beautiful expression of Professor Souleymane Bachir Diagne and thus carry a shared narrative between France and the country of origin. This system, which we propose to call "shared heritage," could contribute to the construction of this "world in common" that Achille Mbembe and Rémy Rioux recently called for" (9)
One can understand that Jean-Luc Martinez, a former director of the Louvre, does not like the concept of legal property and the owner's property rights.
'An original mechanism to provide a constructive response to requests concerning certain symbolic works that do not meet the criteria of restitution: notion of Shared Heritage. It is a question of going beyond the question of legal property to consider the question from the angle of the accessibility of works by authorizing a form of long-term deposit involving the joint writing of a shared history of objects.' (10)
Martinez considers the concept of ownership irritating and a nuisance. If such a concept were applied to the artworks in the Louvre or Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, how many objects would remain in these venerable institutions?
Those who have spent several decades fighting for the restitution of African artefacts must feel that Diagne is telling them they have wasted their lives in seeking the return of looted African artefacts when, indeed, the real home of these objects, chez eux, was in France, especially in Paris.
We are no less disturbed when we read that the artworks in the Palais des sessions are 'nomadic.' The Gou statue is a product of the court art of the Dahomeyan monarchy. How does this famous masterpiece become 'nomadic' in whatever sense the word is used here? Perhaps this is the old European colonialist reflex to categorize everything African as underdeveloped, disorganized, lacking in structure, and in need of careful management. The idea of nomadic fits in with the tale by Eugène Fonssagrives, a colonel in the French invasion army of 1892-94, who brought the statue of Gou to the Musée d'Ethnographie du Trocadéro. According to this account, this elaborate masterpiece was found abandoned on a beach. Whether the statue was found at a beach or was more likely among the spoils of war the victorious French army stole from the deserted Abomey Palace ,with the rest of the royal artefacts, Jean-Luc Martinez accepted the story that the statue had been voluntarily abandoned by the Dahomeyans and thus, could create in his report a category of artefacts which were neither stolen nor taken without consent of the owners and therefore, do not qualify for restitution.
United Nations/UNESCO, the African Union (AU), ECOWAS, and many other bodies have been urging former colonizing powers to return looted African artefacts to their owners. The United Nations General Assembly has passed, since 1972, an annual resolution, later biennial, entitled 'Return of Cultural Property to Countries of Their Origin,' recommending the restitution of looted artefacts. (11) Could all these representative bodies be wrong in their common stand for restitution? Do we have to choose between the position of the learned philosopher and that of representative bodies? Do intellectuals, especially Africans, have no obligation to consider the views of their representative bodies, such as the African Union? Do we have to choose between the position of the people of the Republic of Benin, represented by their President, Patrice Talon, and that of the Senegalese philosopher?
At the signing of the agreement between Benin and France on the restitution of twenty-six looted artefacts to Benin in 2021, Patrice Talon stressed the vital importance of the statue of Gou:
But, Mr. President, Dear President, you will agree with me that the restitution of the twenty-six (26) works that we are celebrating today is but only a step in the ambitious process of equity and restitution of memorial objects exhorted from the kingdoms of the territory of Benin by France.
Mr. President, it is regrettable that this act of restitution, however appreciable, is insufficient to give us complete satisfaction.
Indeed, how can you expect my satisfaction to be complete when I depart with only twenty-six works? In contrast, the God Gou, an emblematic work that represents the god of metals and metallurgy, the Fa tablet, a mythical work of divination by the celebrated soothsayer Guèdègbé, and numerous other works, continue to be detained here in France to the great detriment of their actual owners.
But is it subsequently not allowed to hope? Yes, Mr. President.
The hope of returning to our country with the works I have mentioned and many others, and the hope of their recovery in our country, is henceforth allowed, thanks to you. It is extraordinary. (12)
Among the treasures in the Palais des Sessions are three Nok sculptures that were illegally exported from Nigeria and purchased by France at an auction in Brussels, with full knowledge that the objects had been illegally exported. This purchase caused an international outcry against France. France secured a post-factum agreement from the Nigerian government on the condition that the display of the objects would indicate that they are Nigerian property deposited in the museum. (13)
Lord Renfrew was categorical in his condemnation of the attitude of President Jacques Chirac:
"His attitude is dishonourable. I regret that Nigeria was weak enough to accept to sign an agreement in order to give an appearance of legality to this acquisition. But above all, the fault lies with the French president who made the request. The responsible officials of the museum should be ashamed to have placed their Head of State and their own country in such a deplorable situation." (14) Have these Nok sculptures also mutated, or does the theory of mutation only apply to African artefacts seized by the French during their violent colonization? What about artefacts seized by the British in Benin, such as the ivory hip mask of Queen Mother Idia, which has been in the British Museum since 1910 and was among the loot from 1897?
African artefacts can be kept in Western museums without the need for any theory of mutation that cannot be established with convincing concrete evidence. The example of German museums lending Nigerian/Benin artefacts can be cited, even though we criticized certain aspects of that agreement. If the French government wants to retain African artefacts in French museums, it will need to reach an agreement with the relevant governments.
A theory of mutation, unsupported by any concrete or verifiable evidence,
cannot absolve the French from going through a restitution process and negotiating with relevant African governments and peoples. Former colonialist powers must acknowledge the colonial history of violence and accept reparatory justice.
Diagne surely knows that his position on African artefacts in the Palais des sessions is close to that of Western groups that object to restitution, albeit for entirely different reasons. (15) Among this group are racists who still believe the West can manage African art and Africans in any way they choose. Some others, impressed by imperialist ideology and propaganda, do not advance any serious argument but declare, for example, that Benin artefacts should not be returned to the Oba of Benin because the manilas used in producing the bronzes were obtained through the slave trade. These persons seem oblivious to the role of Western States, such as Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, and Portugal, in the nefarious Transatlantic trade.
What would Aimé Césaire, Amilcar Cabral, Cheikh Anta Diop, Franz Fanon, Abdel Gamel Nasser, Agostinho Neto, Kwame Nkrumah, and other African leaders think of a theory of mutation of looted African artefacts that results in leaving African cultural treasures in the imperialist and colonialists' countries? What, then, was the need for the struggle for independence? Independence without culture because that was left for the French and the British?
Those who decide that the Vodou god, Gou, should stay in France are not adherents of Vodou, but are they not worried that they are depriving other religions of their iconic symbols? They seek to transform an object of religious veneration and political significance into a mere object for aesthetic contemplation.
To grant France control over the religious statue of Gou, the god of war, is to approve the colonial project of France, which has stolen and still holds six thousand artefacts from its former colony of Dahomey, refusing to return them, except for twenty-six that were returned in 2021. This subsequent approval of the colonial project comes decades after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(1948), which grants fundamental human rights to all individuals, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(1966), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights(1966) and United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP,2007, that provides explicitly in Article 11 1. that
'Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.'
Can the theory of mutation secure an exception to this provision for France and, thus, avoid negotiations between France and Benin and consequently render superfluous any acrimonious debate on past historical events?
The theory of mutation ignores the historical political context in which we fought for independence. Independence was to free us from the abject state of dependence in which slavery and colonial systems had left us. How could we regain our self-respect if we left our spiritual and cultural underpinnings in the hands of the colonialists?
We are not assured by the suggestion that one should separate the question of ownership from that of location. Not explicitly stated is that ownership will remain with the African country, such as Benin, but France will retain possession of the object. This reminds us of the CFA. The African country owns the reserves of the African state, but the reserves are located in France, with Banque de France. Gou will be located in France even though the ownership remains with Benin. This is a curious division of ownership rights. The owner can do nothing without the consent of the location, which may even refuse to listen to the owner as in the case of Gou, which has been repeatedly requested by President Talon of Benin, but the French refuse to return.
If we apply this split to the ownership of a Mercedes-Benz vehicle, the car could be located in London while the owner is in Accra. When could the owner use the car?
Would Africans be the only people in the history of humankind who did not possess artefacts of their gods and ancestors because colonial masters seized the treasures they produced, refusing stubbornly to return them, confident in the knowledge that some African leaders and scholars supported this act of spoliation and deprivation?
The restitution of artefacts is not only the return of objects but also an acknowledgment of the historical injustice experienced under the colonial system and a promise that such wrongdoing will not be repeated. Restitution, then, is an essential element of reparatory justice, as implied by the propositions of the Starr-Savoy report to return African artefacts seized during the colonial regime. The theory of mutation contradicts the spirit and recommendations of the Sarr-Savoy report. The hope for a new ethical relationship is certainly destroyed if important artefacts are already attributed to France through mutation.
Diagne proposes a new universalism, a lateral universalism, where all cultures are on the same level, unlike the old vertical, imperialist, Eurocentric universalism, which placed European culture above all others. (16) Many Africans will embrace the new concept of universalism. However, if the effect of lateral universalism on looted African art is the same or similar to that of Eurocentric universalism, then we will reject the new concept as well. If the value of the various lateral universalisms are on the same level, how come that primacy is given to French universalism by determining the fate of Gou on the role this statue and other African objects played in influencing French vanguardist artists, to the total neglect of the role they played and play in the African universe? French art history is advantaged over African art history and religion. The importance of this Vodou god to more than sixty million followers in Africa, North America, and South America is ignored.
All scholars who have examined the imprisonment or detention of Gou in France have emphasized the significance of this statute in its country of origin and the various roles it has played. In her study, Du champ de Bataille au musée: les tribulations d'une sculpture fon', Maureen Murphy explains that the significance and status of the statue of Gou evolved through several stages, from the battlefield to the Louvre, from being a sacred symbol of the power of Dahomeyan kings to being spoils of war during colonization, a symbol of French imperial might, an ethnographic object and later a masterpiece of art. These various stages did not cancel each other out as constituent elements of this statute. (17)
If Gou's history is made up of several layers that 'are far from cancelling each other out,' how then can a theory of mutation concentrate only on the later stage in the life of the statue when it was considered a chef d'oeuvre in France, and ignore its more active, longer and varied life in Dahomey where it was considered not only as a masterpiece but also an object of veneration and cultural significance?
Patrick Talon, Felwine Sarr, Cécile Zinsou, and Gaelle Beaujean have all spoken on the importance of this statue to the history of the people of Benin. Gabin Djimassé has stated that the statue of Gou is the most important of all the Benin objects in France and the one the people of Benin would choose if asked to select one object from the five thousand Benin objects in France. Can one ignore all this? How can the people of Benin obtain a complete picture and knowledge of their history if their most important artwork is in France? The colonization of knowledge will continue if what was stolen in the course of European aggression has been transformed into European possession thanks to the theory of artefact mutation.
After reading the publications on the god of war, Gou, which stress the importance of Gou for Benin culture, religion, and history, it becomes difficult to understand how anyone can honestly award this sculpture to France unless there are undisclosed reasons for this that are not evident to us.
Restitution as recommended by Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy, The restitution of African cultural heritage. A new relational ethics presents an opportunity for establishing new relations between Europe and Africa through the recognition of Africa's right to request the return of its cultural heritage and the possibility of writing a new chapter in the history of relations between France and its former colonies, one that is peaceful and based on mutual respect.
The theory of the mutations of AfriAfrican artefacts will surely not be accepted by the supporters the Sarr-Savoy report or the African youth. Such a theory of mutation is a serious challenge to the right of Africans to recover our cultural artefacts looted with great violence under Western colonialism. The theory will encourage those States and museums that have never really accepted the need to restitute looted artefacts to resist change.
Above all, the theory of artefact mutation overlooks the most crucial development in the last few decades in the restitution debate: the remarkable resurgence of ethics and morality in the debate. The spectacular comeback of ethical considerations after they had been 'banned' by Western museum directors and their supporters, now weighs heavily in discussions.
How often did we hear in the past," Yes, morally, the Benin artefacts should be returned to Benin, given the violence of their capture in 1897, but legally, this cannot be done? It is covered by law.' Law triumphed by persons who generally did not attach importance to the law. What was once considered impossible is now possible. Many Museum officials and others now believed that morality requires changes in Western attitudes and positions regarding restitution matters. (18)
Various institutions began to restitute looted objects on grounds of morality and ethics. Jesus College Cambridge returned to Nigeria a Benin bronze cockerel,' Okokur,' Sonita Alleyne, Master of Jesus College, said, "This is the right thing to do out of respect for the unique heritage and history of this artefact,"
On the handing of a Benin bronze to Nigeria, Prof George Boyne, the university's principal, and vice-chancellor of the University of Aberdeen, said, "It would not have been right to have retained an item of such great cultural significance that was acquired in such reprehensible circumstances."
The numerous restitutions that occurred in 2021-2022, made on moral grounds, indirectly denounce the moral bankruptcy of previous decades. A prime example of the descent or flight into amorality is the infamous Declaration on the Importance of Universal Museums(2002), which unashamedly declares in its second sentence:
'Over time, objects so acquired—whether by purchase, gift, or partage—have become part of the museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the heritage of the nations which house them. Today, we are especially sensitive to the subject of a work's original context. Still, we should not lose sight of the fact that museums too provide a valid and valuable context for objects that were long ago displaced from their original source.'
The eighteen major museums that signed this notorious Declaration sought thus to absolve themselves from any moral or legal responsibility for crimes committed or violence involved in the acquisition of artefacts while still retaining those objects under their control. Could the mutation theory achieve, without much discussion, what the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums could not achieve? (19) The reassertion of the power and predominance of the much discredited 'universal museum' would thus be achieved without much struggle.
Neil MacGregor, former director of the British Museum and Chair of the Louvre (2021), in his book À monde nouveau, nouveaux musées, suggested that the present world requires changed museums that would allow the restitution of looted artefacts. His successor at the Louvre Chair suggests that the looted arts are chez eux (at home) in the Palais des Sessions. The current director of the British Museum has recently reiterated the museum's policy not to restitute any looted artefacts, likely aware of the recent wave of voices against restitution and theories that would justify the non-restitution of stolen artefacts. (20)
The African Union and other institutions have recently affirmed their determination to recover looted African artefacts and heritage. (21) This year's theme, "Justice for Africans and People of African Descent through Reparations," implies a determination on the part of the awakened continent to recover its heritage from former colonial powers and shape its future. All those who have hitherto doubted the capacity of the continent to forge its future and unlawfully hold African artefacts, as well as those who continue to exploit African resources without regard for equity and justice, will have to make serious adjustments. In this endeavour, the continent counts on its intellectuals and youth to be in the vanguard. President Mahama of Ghana rightly declared that our heritage cannot remain forever imprisoned in foreign museums while we celebrate Africa Day.' What will be the answer of the theory of mutation to this demand?
Prof. Diagne spoke briefly on restitution in the Louvre lectures, as he had announced at the beginning of the series, and did not elaborate more on the concept of objets mutants. We assume that after the renovations at the Louvre are completed and the Palais des Sessions is re-opened, there will be more questions about the justification for looted African art in the Palais des Sessions. We may get a clearer elaboration of the theory of mutating objects. Who will tell Gou that he is no longer a god of war and metallurgy? What about his other African brothers and sisters in prison in the Palais des sessions? What are they now, having assumed other cosmologies in France? Will the museum inform visitors about the new and old cosmologies of the African, now French, objects displayed there?
In the meanwhile, we assert that the presence of Gou in France is illegitimate as a stolen object and should be returned to Benin. The absence of Gou from Benin deprives the people of an essential element of their culture, religion, and history.
'But concerning the category of museums like quai Branly, I hope the film gives you an idea of my relationship to this kind of museum. The sequence in quai Branly is almost [like] a funeral
. I found these spaces morbid. The morbidity these spaces express and embody was not something I forced in terms of gaze and mise en scene. It was a matter of revealing the very morbid aspects of the European Western colonial gaze that has enclosed these artefacts. When you see the [museum's] underground, it's filmed both as a prison and a morgue. So yeah, I hope my relationship with this type of public museum is revealed. I think it is very transparent.' Wati Diop. (22)
"This 'god of iron,' which comes from Benin, brings to mind the issue of restitution. In Dahomey, Franco-Senegalese Mati Diop's film that won the Golden Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival this year, Beninese students lament its absence among the twenty-six objects France returned to their country. As for me, I can see it remaining here. This object is at home in the Louvre. Of course, we could imagine a loan or even a transfer of ownership to the state of Benin. However, ownership must be separated from location. The objects in the Louvre are meant to be nomadic. This 'god of iron' also shows the diversity of African art. It is not limited to masks and can incorporate European materials" Souleymane Bachir Diagne. (23)
NOTES
1. Restitution Day 2024: Remembrance and Reckoning
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1355754/restitution-day-2024-remembrance-and-reckoning.html
2. Lecture by Souleyman Bachir Diagne: ‘Mutant African objects and the question of restitution,
https://www.meg.ch/en/research-collections/objets-africains-mutants-question-restitution
There are some good films and videos on the imprisoned looted African artefacts in the Palais des sessions and Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac.
Mati Diop, Dahomey
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31015216/
https://www.imdb.com/video/vi3753691417/?ref_=ttvg_vi_1
Nora Philippe, Restituer ? L’Afrique en quête de ses chefs d’œuvre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPBkAG0w9f8&themeRefresh=1
Geraubte Schätze: Die Statue des Gottes Gou (8/8) - 3sat-Mediathek
Laurent Védrine, Restituer l'art africain : les fantômes de la colonisation https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14467924/?ref_=fn_all_ttl_1
3. Louvre : quels universels ? - La Chaire du Louvre par Souleymane Bachir Diagne, philosophe
· La renaissance des "fétiches" en œuvres d'art
https://www.louvre.fr/louvreplus/video-la-renaissance-des-fetiches-en-oeuvres-d-art-15?autoplay
· Quand les statues et les masques parlent la langue des dieux
· Accueillir le Pavillon des Sessions et les Arts d’Islam
·
Jeudi 5 décembre : Quand la Joconde sourit aux masques sans fossette
La Chaire du Louvre 2024 par Souleymane Bachir Diagne (5/5) : Louvre - Quels universels ? - YouTube
Lundi 9 décembre : Faire dialoguer les cultures
See also, Souleymane Bachir Diagne, Déterritorialisation et restitution, Mission Dakar-Djibouti, Contre-Enquêtes, Musée du Quai Branly-Jacque Chirac, 2025, p. 218.
4. https://senexalaat.com/2024/10/30/souleymane-bachir-diagne-plaide-t-il-pour-la-non-restitution-des-oeuvres-dart-africains/ See also .K. Opoku, Restitution Day 2024: Remembrance And Reckoning https://www.modernghana.com/news/1355754/restitution-day-2024-remembrance-and-reckoning.html
5. Restitution of artefacts challenges colonial narratives, embraces cultural dialogue https://international.la-croix.com/culture/restitution-of-artefacts-challenges-colonial-narratives-embraces-cultural-dialogue
The argument here is one of the favourites of the opponents of restitution. We ask for the restitution of one or few African artefacts and it is alleged we want all African artefacts back, an obviously impossible task, given the considerable number of our looted artefacts in Western museums. One hundred and eighty thousand objects (180,000) in the Afrika Museum, Tervuren, Belgium, built by the very cruel Belgian King Leopold, II. Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac in Paris, France, holds seventy-five thousand(75,000) looted African artefacts. None of those demanding restitution has made such an argument. The argument is a fiction of the troubled imagination of a museum director who wakes up in the middle of the night, sweating having dreamt that his museum, which holds large numbers of looted artefacts has been emptied.
When we pleaded in 2008 for the restitution of some Benin bronzes, Philippe De Montebello, famous director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art wrote that “Dr. Opoku believes all Nok, Ife, and Benin pieces outside of Nigeria should be returned to Nigeria; that all works produced on its territory should remain there“ .
It became evident for all that this argument would not fly but decades later some were still presenting this or similar arguments. One exaggerates the demand for a specific or limited number of artefacts so that one does not need to examine the limited demand.
A variety of this argument is the so-called floodgate doctrine. If you give in to one, all the rest will also demand. This is one of the most useless arguments, but it seems to attract many people. It is argued if you give in to the demand for restitution of Benin bronzes you will be face with demand for the Parthenon Marbles. There is no evidence that the Greeks are asking for the Parthenon Marbles because Nigerians ask for Benin bronzes or vice versa. The argument allows to amalgamate entirely different artefacts with different histories.
The floodgate theory is perhaps the most indefensible argument in the repertoire of the opponents of restitution. Basically, the museums are saying if we return one object, we will have to return all the others. Do the museums have only stolen items? See Geoffrey Robertson, Who Owns History?(2019)
It is like a thief who is asked to return my Mercedes and responds that he cannot do that because if he did, he would have to return Volvo, Volkswagen, Toyota, Ford, Audi and other stolen cars and his car park would be empty. He is pleading his wrongdoing as defence against other charges. What happened to the old principle that one cannot plead his wrongdoing as defence? Ex turpi causa non oritur action
Equity will not allow a wrongdoer to profit by a wrong. The Brith Prime Minister, David Cameron once said he did not believe in returnism when asked about the return of the Koh-i- noor diamond.
6. https://rootstofruits.info/A-PLEA https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000035390 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000127315
7. ’The extraction of art, objects and craft was especially heinous in Africa, leading in 1978 to Amadou Mahtar M’Bow, the Director General of UNESCO, to deliver his ‘Plea for the Restitution of an irreplaceable Cultural Heritage to those who created it’’
K. Opoku, Will Museums Be The Last Bastions Of Western Imperialism And Racism? https://www.modernghana.com/news/1260142/will-museums-be-the-last-bastions-of-western-imper.html
8. Jean- Luc Martinez, Patrimoine partagé : universalité, restitutions et circulation des œuvres d’art,
https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/289235.pdf p.10
Shared Heritage: Universality, Restitutions, and Circulation of Works of Art, 2023
‘L’une des premières œuvres qui pourrait entrer dans cette catégorie d’un « patrimoine partagé » pourrait être la statue du dieu Gou : l’historique de cette œuvre tend en effet à montrer qu’elle ne remplirait pas les critères justifiant une restitution (ce n’est pas une saisie car l’œuvre aurait été abandonnée volontairement). Pour autant c’est une œuvre à la fois importante pour l’histoire du Bénin mais qui, depuis plus d’un siècle qu’elle est en France, a inspiré des artistes et a été exposée dans des expositions internationales. Elle est donc devenue une œuvre riche de cette histoire plurielle. Son exposition au Bénin par le truchement de ce dispositif « patrimoine partagé » permettrait certainement de répondre aux attentes béninoises et d’apporter une nouvelle contribution à la coopération culturelle avec ce pays africain. P.71
9. ‘Ainsi, nous proposons que la future loi-cadre jette les bases d’un dispositif original permettant de répondre à l’avenir à certaines demandes concernant des objets symboliques, devenus « métisses » ou « objets-rhizome », pour reprendre la belle expression du professeur Souleymane Bachir Diagne et par là-même porteurs d’un récit partagé entre la France et le pays d’origine. Ce dispositif que nous proposons de baptiser « patrimoine partagé » pourrait contribuer à la construction de ce « monde en commun » qu’appelaient de leurs vœux récemment Achille Mbembe et Rémy Rioux’ Ibid., p.10.
10. Martinez hates the notion of legal property.
Un mécanisme original pour apporter une réponse constructive aux demandes concernant certaines œuvres symboliques qui ne répondent pas aux critères de restitution : la notion de patrimoine partagé. Il s'agit de dépasser la question de la propriété juridique pour considérer la question sous l'angle de l'accessibilité des œuvres en autorisant une forme de dépôt à long terme impliquant l'écriture commune d'une histoire commune des objets. Ibid. p.71.
11. The latest United Nations General Assembly resolution on return of cultural property to the country of origin, United Nations A/79/L.16, lists in its preamble, previous resolutions on this topic:
The General Assembly,
Reaffirming the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations,
Recalling its resolutions 3026 A (XXVII) of 18 December 1972, 3148 (XXVIII)
of 14 December 1973, 3187 (XXVIII) of 18 December 1973, 3391 (XXX) of
19 November 1975, 31/40 of 30 November 1976, 32/18 of 11 November 1977, 33/50
of 14 December 1978, 34/64 of 29 November 1979, 35/127 and 35/128 of
11 December 1980, 36/64 of 27 November 1981, 38/34 of 25 November 1983, 40/19
of 21 November 1985, 42/7 of 22 October 1987, 44/18 of 6 November 1989, 46/10 of
22 October 1991, 48/15 of 2 November 1993, 50/56 of 11 December 1995, 52/24 of
25 November 1997, 54/190 of 17 December 1999, 56/97 of 14 December 2001, 58/17
of 3 December 2003, 61/52 of 4 December 2006, 64/78 of 7 December 2009, 67/80
of 12 December 2012, 70/76 of 9 December 2015, 73/130 of 13 December 2018 and
76/16 of 6 December 2021,
12. https://presidence.bj/actualite/discours-interviews/255/allocution-patrice-talon-occasion-cceremonie-restitution-26-oeuvres-patrimoine-culturel-benin Angelo Dan, La restitution des biens culturel, Entre la France et le Bénin, Journal d’un processus historique (2016-2022), Présence Africaine, 2024, p.145.
13. K. Opoku, Revisiting Looted Nigerian Nok Terracotta Sculptures in Louvre/Musée du Quai Branly, Paris https://www.africavenir.org/revisiting-looted-nigerian-nok-terracotta-sculptures-in-louvre-musee-du-quai-branly-paris/
14. Lord Renfrew in interview with Noce Vincent in Libération, entitled, « L’attitude de Chirac est déshonorante» http://www.liberation.fr F. Shyllon. “Negotiations for the Return of Nok sculptures from Nigeria – An unrighteous conclusion.” http://portal.unesco.org
15. Trevor Phillips, Principles for Restitution
Lara Brown, Museums need a new approach
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/museums-need-a-new-approach-to-restitution/
Don’t return Benin Bronzes, says former anti-racism tsar
Case of artefacts looted by British soldiers is ‘more complex than a simple matter of right or wrong,’ warns Sir Trevor Phillips
Souleymane Bachir Diagne, Universaliser L’humanité par les moyens d’humanité, Editions Albin Michel ,2024. See Immanuel Wallerstein, European Universalism, The Rhetoric of Power,2006,The New Press.
Diagne would have great difficulty in persuading the Western world that we all belong to one humanity. The determination of Western States to expel Africans from their territories shows a will to set themselves apart from the rest of the world which they controlled for centuries. Western countries are the ones, as historical records show, who through slavery, colonization, and other means of domination have always tried to convince the rest of the world that their inherent superiority sets them apart from the rest of humanity and entitles them to wipe out peoples in Africa, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Latin America, and the United States. They seize other peoples' land and turn around to tell them they are foreigners and do not belong to the land of their ancestors. Does the new or lateral universalism have much to say about this inhuman treatment?
France, for example, has never accepted to treat Africans or persons with dark skin, as equals to those who can refer to their ancestors, les Gaulois
We recall the fate of the Tirailleurs Senegalese, those brave African soldiers from the French colonies, including Senegal, who fought for France in its colonial wars and defended France in both First and Second World Wars, and suffered German racists insult and murder. Many Tirailleurs were shot in cold blood on 2 December 1944 by the French Army at Camp Thaayore, Senegal, for daring to demand pensions and other advantages the Government promised before the war. After the war, the French government paid the white French soldiers but refused to pay the Black African soldiers.
See the film by Eveline Berruezo and Patrice Robin, ‘Le Tata,’ 1992 as well as the film by Ousmane Sembene, Camp de Thiaroye,1988.
Die «Senegalschützen» kämpften im Zweiten Weltkrieg für Frankreich. Als die Waffen schwiegen, wurden sie verraten, gedemütigt und manche auch getötet.
Sénégal : il y a 70 ans, la France "massacrait" des tirailleurs près de Dakar https://www.lexpress.fr/monde/senegal-il-y-a-70-ans-la-france-massacrait-des-tirailleurs-pres-de-dakar_1627335.html
Senegalese Tirailleurs https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Senegalese_Tirailleurs
Warfare History Network
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-tirailleurs-senegalais/
L’histoire cachée du massacre de Thiaroye
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZBW2qLBRlg
17. Maureen Murphy, Du champ de bataille au musée : les tribulations d’une sculpture fon https://journals.openedition.org/actesbranly/213
By all accounts, Gou is considered the most important artwork in Benin art history. https://www.facebook.com/francetvarts/videos/restituer-lart-africain-la-statue-du-dieu-gou/275789877365340/
Laurent Védrine, Restituer l’art africaine,
https://boasblogs.org/dcntr/the-ghosts-of-colonization/
Maureen Murphy, Du champ de bataille au musée : les tribulations d’une sculpture fon
https://journals.openedition.org/actesbranly/213
Gaëlle Beaujean-Baltzer, Du trophée à l’œuvre : parcours de cinq artefacts du royaume d’Abomey Du trophée à l’œuvre : parcours de cinq artefacts du royaume d’Abomey
Marlène Biton, « Sculpture dédiée à Gou, divinité du fer travaillé et de la guerre », Sculptures – Afrique, Asie, Océanie, Amériques, catalogue d’exposition, Paris, Réunion des musées nationaux, 2000, p. 110-113.
Marlene-Michele Biton, Arts, politiques et pouvoirs, Les productions artistiques du Dahomey : fonctions et devenirs, L’Harmattan
2010.
18. Eva Salomon, Head of the Trustees Commission of Horniman Museum and Gardens said, ‘The evidence is very clear that these objects were acquired through force, and external consultation supported our view that it is both moral and appropriate to return their ownership to Nigeria.’ https://www.horniman.ac.uk/story/horniman-to-return-ownership-of-benin-bronzes-to-nigeria/
Annalena Baerbock, German Foreign Minister on handing over Benin artefacts to Nigerian Government: ‘Officials from my country once bought the bronzes, knowing that they had been robbed and stolen. After that, we ignored Nigeria’s plea to return them for a very long time. It was wrong to take them. But it was also wrong to keep them.’ https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/baerbock-return-of-benin-bronzes-to-nigeria-2570334
"These don't belong here. They were violently taken, so they need to go back," declared Marieke van Bommel, museum director, The Wereldmuseum (World Museum), Leiden., as Benin bronzes were packed for sending to Nigeria. Van Bommel added: I think we all agree that this collection doesn't belong in European museums. We do hope that other countries will follow this example."
Belgium issued a report on restitution entitled: Ethical Principles for the Management and Restitution of Colonial Collections in Belgium (June 2021) https://restitutionbelgium.be/en/reportThe
Smithsonian adopted a policy of ethical returns: “There is a growing understanding at the Smithsonian and in the world of museums generally that our possession of these collections carries with it certain ethical obligations to the places and people where the collections originated,” said Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch. “Among these obligations is to consider, using our contemporary moral norms, what should be in our collections and what should not. This new policy on ethical returns is an expression of our commitment to meet these obligations.” https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/smithsonian-adopts-policy-ethical-returns Stanley Museum returned Benin artefacts to the Oba with an apology.
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1328989/restitution-with-dignity-and-humility-stanley.htmlFowler Museum returned golden Asante artefacts to the Asantehene in Kumase on moral grounds : “In the case of pieces that were violently or coercively taken from their original owners or communities, it is our ethical responsibility to do what we can to return those objects’. https://fowler.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FowlerMuseumRelease_Permanent-Return-of-Asante-Objects-to-Ghana.pdf
K. Opoku, Have Ethical Considerations Returned To Restitution For Good? Smithsonian Adopts A Policy On Ethical Returns, https://www.modernghana.com/news/1162776/have-ethical-considerations-returned-to-restitutio.html
19. https://icom.museum/en/ressource/declaration-on-the-importance-and-value-of-universal-museums/
The Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums was signed in 2002 by major museums without the British Museum which had orchestrated the whole event but did not sign the text which is in Bloomsbury language for a good reason: British Museum required the support of the other major museums to counteract the political pressure mounted by Greece on the Parthenon Marbles issue, and sought the return to Athens for the Summer Olympics Games scheduled for 2004. K. Opoku, s The Declaration On The Value And Importance Of The “universal Museums” Now Worthless? Comments On Imperialist ,museology https://www.modernghana.com/news/265620/1/is-the-declaration-on-the-value-and-importance-of-.html
K. Opoku, Declaration On The Importance And Value Of Universal Museums:
Singular Failure Of An Arrogant Imperialist Project
K. Opoku, Defence Of “ Universal Museums ” Through Omissions And Irrelevancies
20. Neil MacGregor, A monde nouveaux, nouveaux musées, Editions Hazan, Paris,2021. BM director rules out restitution ,https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2025/05/bm-director-rules-out-restitution-as-he-outlines-plans-to-foster-collaboration/
21. See Annexes I and II.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/african-union-marks-africa-day-2025-with-a-call-for-justice-unity-and-forward-momentum/ar-AA1FA8nn
https://www.africanparliamentarynews.com/2025/05/africa-day-2025-renewed-call-for.html
‘The repatriation of Africa's stolen cultural artefacts featured prominently in the address, with President Mahama insisting that "our heritage cannot remain captive in foreign museums while we celebrate Africa Day. “He proposed establishing continental mechanisms to facilitate the return and preservation of these cultural treasures.
President Mahama said education had emerged as another critical pillar of the reparations agenda.’ https://www.businessghana.com/site/news/general/328608/Africa-must-unite-for-reparations-justice
https://au.int/en/videos/20250524/africa-day-2025-message-president-ghana-he-john-dramani-mahama
22. https://filmmakermagazine.com/128167-interview-mati-diop-dahomey/
23. « Ce “dieu du fer”, qui provient du Bénin, m’évoque la question des restitutions. Dans le film Dahomey, les étudiants béninois déplorent son absence parmi les 26 objets que la France a rendus à leur pays. De mon côté, je le vois bien rester ici. Cet objet est chez lui au Louvre. Bien sûr, on peut imaginer un prêt et même un transfert de propriété à l’État du Bénin. Il faut cependant détacher la propriété de la localisation. Les objets du Louvre ont vocation à être nomades. Ce “dieu du fer” montre aussi la diversité de l’art africain. Il ne se résume pas aux masques et peut recourir à des matériaux européens. ». Souleymane Bachir Diagne. https://international.lacroix.com/fr/culture/restitutions-duvres-les-objets-venus-dafrique-sont-chez-eux-au-louvre
ANNEX I
Beyond compensation: Reparatory justice as a structural economic Imperative for Africa
In 2025, the African Union has set a powerful and necessary theme: “Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations.” It is a call not just for reflection, but for clarity, courage, and a strategic reframing of the reparations discourse.
2 May 2025
Par
Cristina Duarte
A man looks out to sea from the Door of No Return on Gorée Island, Senegal—a solemn memorial to the millions of Africans taken from their homeland during the transatlantic slave trade. The island stands today as a symbol of remembrance and resilience. UN Photo/Mark Garten
The pursuit of reparations has long animated African and global dialogues about justice. Since 1963, when the Organization of African Unity (OAU)—the predecessor to the African Union (AU) — first took up this cause, efforts have been made to advocate for reparations for historical crimes committed against Africans and people of African descent.
These historical crimes included the trans-Atlantic slave trade, colonialism, apartheid, and systemic racial discrimination. Important initiatives have been supported by the AU, from seeking restitution for pillaged cultural artefacts to advancing formal reparation demands at the global level.
Yet, for decades, the conversation has often been relegated to the background, as too often, it is viewed through a narrow financial accounting exercise—it must be deepened, expanded, and, above all, demystified.
The true meaning of reparations in the 21st century cannot be confined to rectifying past wrongs through merely monetary terms. If reparations are framed solely as a historical debt to be paid, without addressing the structural injustices that have persisted and evolved, the conversation risks becoming hollow and ineffective.
We cannot meaningfully repair the past without repairing the present dynamics of Africa’s position within international commerce and multilateralism—systems that continue to apply an extractive mindset to Africa’s people and resources.
The incomplete conversation: Past wrongs vs present wrongs
Reparations are often discussed exclusively in terms of the past: slavery, colonial exploitation, violent occupation, and cultural pillage. These were monumental crimes, and the demand for justice for these wrongs is not negotiable.
However, focusing solely on history without interrogating today’s systemic injustices misses a vital truth: the past wrongs were not buried; they were transformed into today’s economic and political systems.
The structures that enabled colonialism, enslavement, and racial domination have morphed into new forms. Africa remains trapped in a global economic system characterized by the permanent extraction of value through the so-called “commodity trap.”
- Ghana exported $9.58 billion in gold in 2024, yet it only retained 14% of the value due to the nature of multinational agreements.
- The DRC produces over 70% of the world’s cobalt, yet only 1% is refined in the country before being exported.
- Zimbabwe was ranked as the third-largest producer of chromium in 2023, yet most was exported in raw form.
- Collectively, West Africa produces 70% of the world’s cacao beans but contributes less than 1% of the global chocolate market.
- In Somalia, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing by foreign fishing fleets costs the economy $300 million a year.
Yet, this picture is not limited to raw commodities but extends to financial resources as well.
In this system, Africa is a net creditor to the world, losing more than $500 billion every year through illicit financial flows, unfair trade practices, exploitative investment frameworks, and debt servicing, while it is home to some of the world’s poorest populations.
This reality starkly reveals that today’s wrongs need to be placed in direct relation to yesterday’s crimes. To seek reparations solely for the historical offenses without confronting the ongoing structural injustices is to perform an incomplete act of justice.
Reparations: The 21st Century imperative
The 21st century demands a bold redefinition of what reparations truly mean. Reparations must not be seen merely as financial compensation for past events. They must be understood as a call to transform the very rules of the game—the international trade, finance, and governance systems that have perpetuated injustice for centuries.
Otherwise, a profound contradiction arises: reparations would be paid with Africa’s own stolen wealth.
Thus, reparations must go far beyond any narrow accounting of damages. Financial reparations are necessary but not sufficient. They must be embedded in a comprehensive restructuring of the political, economic, and social frameworks that sustain African underdevelopment and marginalization.
What, then, do true reparations look like in the 21st century?
It is a multi-dimensional project aimed at creating the conditions for dignity, autonomy, and shared prosperity for Africans and people of African descent. It is not just a matter of financial transfers but of systemic transformation:
- Justice for the past - through acknowledgment, apology, restitution, and financial compensation where appropriate.
- Justice for the present - through dismantling the economic structures that replicate colonial patterns of dependency and exploitation.
- Justice for the future - by securing Africa’s rightful place as a co-architect of global governance, development priorities, and economic policy.
True reparations demand:
- A re-configuration of global trade systems to end Africa's dependence on raw commodity exports and build competitive, value-added economies.
- Transforming the international financial architecture that systematically disadvantages African nations, including ending the "African Premium" that artificially inflates borrowing costs for African nations.
- The restitution of African sovereignty over its natural resources, human capital, and policy choices, ensuring that countries have the fiscal space and direct their financial flows to drive their own development decisions.
- The end of illicit financial flows and the repatriation of stolen assets by redirecting FDI and ODA to invest in strong institutions and country systems, and above all, digital public infrastructure.
- The political will to ensure that Africans and people of African descent have an equal say in shaping the global order by introducing critical reforms in multilateral institutions to ensure equal representation and decision-making.
Addressing historical injustices without uprooting these contemporary injustices would amount to an empty and meaningless conversation.
The African Union’s 2025 theme provides a historic opportunity, but only if it is approached with uncompromising courage, clarity, and a focus on both past and present wrongs.
We must demystify the conversation.
Reparations are not merely about the past; they are about the structures that continue to disadvantage Africa today. The past has not ended, it has evolved. And unless we repair today’s wrongs, there will be no true justice for yesterday’s crimes.
Africa must lead this conversation, not with a hand outstretched for compensation, but with a demand for systemic economic justice.
Reparations are not about charity; they are about fairness, restitution, and the right to define a future unshackled from the legacies of exploitation.
The world must be prepared not just to listen, but to act upon this bold and necessary call.
Ms. Duarte is Under-Secretary-General and Special Adviser on Africa to the UN Secretary-General. Beyond compensation: Reparatory justice as a structural economic imperative for Africa | Africa Renewal
Annex II
Africa Day 2025: Pan-African dialogue in Dakar demands reparative justice for historical wrongs
On Africa Day 2025, participants from across the continent and the diaspora gathered in Dakar, Senegal, and online for a powerful Pan-African Dialogue centred on reparative justice.
Held under the theme “Reparative Justice for Africans: Reclaiming Dignity and Building Accountability,” the event brought together policymakers, civil society leaders, youth activists, traditional authorities, artists, and academics for an intergenerational conversation grounded in memory, justice, and action.
Hosted at Hotel Ngor Diarama and streamed live in English and French, the hybrid event aligned with the African Union’s 2025 theme: “Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations.”
Speakers challenged participants to move beyond commemoration toward concrete, unified action.
“We need to go beyond declarations and act concretely to move Africa’s agenda ahead,” said Ousseynou Ly, spokesperson for the Office of the President of Senegal.
“The shadow of slavery, colonialism, and apartheid is still visible across our continent. We owe it to our young generation to remember—and to act.”
Dr. Eyole Nganje Monono, Chairperson of the AU ECOSOCC Political Affairs Cluster, echoed that call.
“The quest for justice and reparations is rooted in the shared history of transatlantic slavery, colonialism, and apartheid. The African Union is committed to addressing these historical injustices.”
Participants emphasised that reparative justice is not only about the past—it’s about dismantling the systems of inequality that persist today.
“This year’s theme resonates as a call to action—an invitation to confront past injustices and build a fairer future,” said Desire Assogbavi, Advocacy Advisor at the Open Society Foundations.
“The scars left by slavery, colonisation, apartheid, and systemic discrimination remain visible. These historical injustices have
persistent inequalities, hindering the development of our nations and the well-being of our people.”
- Moral and historical recognition of slavery, colonisation, apartheid, and systemic racism.
- Structural reform and economic sovereignty to redress global trade, finance, and governance inequalities.
- Cultural restitution and identity reclamation, including the return of stolen artefacts and the restoration of African heritage.
- Domestic recommitment to good governance, peace, democracy, and social investment.
“The reparative justice we demand from the world also requires greater accountability from African leaders towards their own people,” Assogbavi said.
“African states must improve governance, fight corruption, and invest in education, health, and economic opportunities.”
The conversation extended to modern consequences of historical injustice, including environmental and climate harms.
“To address historical injustices means acknowledging the profound harm caused by slavery, colonialism, and apartheid—and the continuing impact on our people,” said Brian Kagoro, Managing Director at Open Society Foundations.
“Reparative justice means building a more equitable future by addressing systemic inequalities—wealth disparities, unequal access to services, and environmental degradation.”
He stressed the need to address both psychological and material harms.
“Victims and survivors are still healing from the collective trauma and psychological scars of oppression,” he said.
“Reparations must restore dignity and empower people to reclaim control over their futures.”
“This includes addressing climate injustice, pollution, biodiversity loss, and unequal responsibility for historical emissions,” Kagoro added.
“This is also a matter of international law and human rights. Reparations represent the highest expression of international principles of justice and dignity. They take many forms—financial compensation, public apology, memorialization, guarantees of non-repetition.”
“Ultimately, reparations are about creating the conditions for a just and equitable future,” he concluded. “Not just for healing the past, but for transforming tomorrow.”
The event featured expert presentations, cultural performances, youth dialogues, and dynamic audience engagement. It also spotlighted the central role of youth, media, and artists in sustaining the movement for justice.
“Reparative justice goes beyond financial compensation,” Assogbavi emphasised.
“It entails recognition of the harm suffered, restitution of looted cultural property, and the implementation of policies that address structural imbalances.”
Organised by the Open Society Foundations, the National Youth Council of Senegal, West African Democracy Radio, AU-ECOSOCC, Junior Chamber Senegal, and The ONE Campaign Francophone Africa Directorate, the gathering marked a bold step forward in Africa’s collective journey to reclaim dignity and demand transformative justice.
“On Africa Day, we honour not just our history, but our agency—our right to shape a future built on equity, dignity, and accountability,” Kagoro said in closing.
IMAGES
SOME AFRICAN ARTEFACTS IN PALAIS DES SESSIONS, PARIS, FRANCE.
One of the three looted Nok pieces that the French bought illegally at auction even though they knew they were looted. The pieces now in possession of the Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac are displayed in the Palais des Session with post factum consent of Nigeria, violating its own laws.
Figure of a bearded male, Nok, Nigeria, now in Musée du quai Branley-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.
Figure of seated male, Nok, Nigeria, now in Musée du quai Branly Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.
Trophy head, Benin, Nigeria, looted by the British in 1897, now in Musee du Quai Branly Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.
Warriors holding ceremonial swords, Benin, by the British in 1897, now in Musée du Quai Branly Jacques Chirac. This artefact was sold by Barbier Muller to the Musée du quai Branly
Reliquary figure, Kota, Gabon, Musée du Quai Branly=Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.
Headrest, Luba ,Democratic Republic of Congo, Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.
Ife Head, Ife ,Nigeria, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.
Fang mask used for the Ngil ceremony, an inquisitorial search for sorcerers
Musee du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac. Paris, France.
Sapi sculpture, side-blown horn, Sierra Leone, now in Palais des sessions, Musee du Quai Branly- Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.
Gou, God of war and metallurgy, Fon, Republic of Benin,
, now in musée du Quai Branly, Palais des Sessions, Paris, France.
Gou has religious and political functions. He heard and received promises of valour and challenges proclaimed by soldiers before they set of for battle and received prayers to protect them from their enemies.
Divinity box with mice, Côte d’Ivoire, now in Musee du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.
Nimba shoulder mask, Guinea, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France. This mask was worn in ceremonial Nimba dance and was kept out of sight in a sacred hut. The mask protected entire communities, especially
pregnant women, attended weddings and guided the dead in the world of ancestors.
Figure of an ancestor Bidjogo, Bissagos Archipelago, Guinée- Bissau, now in Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.
Mbembe slit drum end, Nigeria, musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, ParisFrance.
 |
Dogon maternal figure, Mali, now in Musée du quai Branly, Palais des Sessions, Musée du Quai Branly, Paris,
France.
Bamendou, sculpture, royal mask tukah, Cameroon, Pavillon des Sessions, Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.
.
Female figure with scarified marks on face, Nuna sculpture, Burkina Faso, now in Musee du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, Palais des Sessions, Paris, France.
Tellem sculpture, Cliffs of Bandiagara, Mali, now in Palais des sessions, musée du Quai Branly Jacques- Chirac, Paris, France.
National Cathedral Board denies plans to convert project into Cultural Conventio...
President Mahama fires CEO of National Ambulance Service Nuhu Zakaria
Agradaa is in Nsawam Prison – Lawyer
Wife of convicted former MASLOC official petitions President Mahama for presiden...
We'll give NPP a befitting defeat in Ablekuma North rerun - Tanko-Computer
Ansah Asare criticises Justice Torkornoo’s ECOWAS Court move
Excessive BoG intervention fueling multiple exchange rates — Prof. Bokpin
V/R: Hohoe NDC Constituency Organizer locks up NADMO office
KNUST student jailed 10 years for robbery
KATH doctor’s death a national shame — Dr. Asah-Asante blasts gov't
