This research responds to the debates over who should own Benin objects returned to Nigeria and the news about the Oba of Benin commenting, prior to 2023, that the Benin objects to be returned to Nigeria should be returned to him and not the federal government. This article uncovers the perceptions of the members of the Igun community, many of whom are the descendants of the Igun guild that produced the Benin objects that were carted away from Benin Kingdom during the 1897 Expedition. Using a survey questionnaire and in-depth interviews, the article examines the perceptions of the Igun community about the Benin objects and the effect of the expedition on Benin art and heritage. The findings reveal that many believe the Benin objects should be returned to the Oba, who is the custodian of Benin culture and heritage. The respondents are also in agreement that the expedition, although brutal, nonetheless brought Benin art and heritage into the limelight. The article also carries out a critique of the Executive Order Notice No. 25, Order No. 1 of 2023, and concludes by stating that though the executive order is invalid, its invalidity is inconsequential with respect to the dictates of customary law, human rights law, and international law.
Over the years, our perspective on cultural heritage has undergone changes. The field has become more diverse, requiring solution-focused approaches to address the underlying problems associated with cultural heritage. One significant challenge is the issue of restitution, which is considered a major failure of international cultural heritage law. How can international cultural heritage law completely heal historical wounds instead of merely offering empty hopes to those who have suffered? Simply acknowledging past wrongs by offending states is insufficient, and it does not align with the fundamental legal principle that where there is a wrong, there should be a remedy (ubi jus ibi remedium). Despite the considerable growth in the jurisprudence of international cultural heritage law, there remains a pressing need to consolidate the legal framework to facilitate the restitution of stolen or looted cultural objects. This article argues that the prohibition of plunder and pillage of cultural property constitutes a jus cogens rule of international law. Its violation therefore gives rise to an unconditional obligation to restitute such property.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.