2023: My Fears For Igbo Presidency – Paul Unongo

Paul Unongo image via Sun News

BY GYANG BERE

JOS (SUN NEWS) -- Paul Unongo is the former Chairman of Northern Elder’s Forum who resigned during the peak of herdsmen killings in Benue and Plateau states.

In this interview in Jos, he advised the Igbo not to wait for other Nigerians to give them the presidency, but to organise themselves as Nigerians and not Igbo to canvass support for the slot.

He also expressed fear that Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and Vice President Yemi Osinbajo might not sacrifice their ambition of becoming President in 2023 for the Igbo after working so hard to capture power from the PDP.

Unongo praised Nigerians for rewarding President Muhammadu Buhari with a second tenure, saying that the president has demonstrated courage in the fight against corruption in the country. Excerpts:

There has been this debate about whether Nigeria should be restructured or not. Where do you stand?

There is need for us to understand what we mean by restructuring and this can be traced back to history. In Nigeria, when you benefit from goodness you don’t do good to others, you do terrible things to pull anybody else down. I think the British sowed a seed and they had divide and rule. They were loyal to their metropolitan powers in their metropolitan countries and they taught us that we are a bunch of African natives brought together to work for the metropolitan powers and it was true. They didn’t teach us that this education was supposed to be applied to now work for our country. They didn’t teach us how to work for our tribes and we too, when we gained freedom to do it on our own, we didn’t even disabuse our minds that government is not a body you steal from; government is an organization that organises human beings and shares the values and the good which they have in a proportionate manner that will allow for the society to develop and at the same time allow us not to kill one another.

So, do you consider restructuring as an option to solving Nigeria’s problems?

That is another thing entirely. When you are talking to a Yoruba man that is in Afenifere, he has a different conceptualization of restructuring. When you are talking to an Igbo man who is a Biafran at heart, he has his own definition of restructuring. When you are not an Afenifere member, and looking at the economic benefits of Nigeria, as long as he is benefitting, he has a different definition. When you are talking to another Igbo man who is not an Ohanaeze Ndigbo member and he is thinking about his businesses, where he has to be free as an entrepreneur, he is talking about where he can go and sit down to be the greatest entrepreneur, he has a different definition of restructuring. I think if Nigerians will have a dialogue, let us agree on what it is we are talking about, and if restructuring is a game politicians who feel that the British came to this country and divided us into power blocs and one power bloc is dominant and we don’t like the domination of that power bloc because the British has effectively done that and we are consolidated into dividing Nigeria into the North and South. The more educated and wise people came from the South. In those days, the less educated people came from the North and this was the thing that you can trace as the cause or factor of the Nigerian civil war or the first coup, you can trace it back to this first major issue. If this is what people are talking about restructuring, let’s say so. Is it that the British came and divided Nigeria into two uneven houses, gave over a half of the land of Nigeria, in fact, almost three quarter of the landmass of Nigeria to the North and divided the remaining one set of the landmass of Nigeria for the West and the East and we in our own wisdom created Mid-West which didn’t make sense. If this is what we are struggling with, let us say so…. So, what do we mean by restructuring? If by restructuring, you say restructure Nigeria physically so that we can have components that will be recognized by the constitution that power will be given to them to maintain federalism so that they can be equal in physical shape, say so; let’s put it up for discussion. If by restructuring you say you want to change people’s way of life, have you found a way of life that will be common to everybody and things like that; or like the British made a mistake. Are the Yoruba enjoying power with the Fulani so much that they are now saying restructure Nigeria into Yoruba, into Igbo, into Fulani and they have created something called Fulani/Hausa, then what happens to a Berom man, what happens to a Tiv man and so on?

So, what will you recommend as restructuring?

Wait, I can’t talk about what I don’t know. Are you saying that democracy should be defined by another means instead of one man, one vote?

People expected that their votes would count in the last general elections, but some people felt that their votes didn’t count, how do we handle that?

Look, you are not going to build a country by day-dreamers. There is a reality confronting you and you are afraid of taking it up. I always get angry with my Igbo friends.Why are you afraid in Igbo land? You want to talk about something for which you went to war and three million human beings were killed and you think this was a joke. Why did you go to war? You went to war because you thought Hausa people were dominating you and when you talk about restructuring you don’t want to be dominated by Hausa people and you said they are not educated, and you insult them yet you came down and accepted a system of governance without qualifying it. Why didn’t you present a proposal to the British and say look, a man who is not educated up to Masters degree level should not have one vote so that three people from the North will make one person from the East. Who will agree to that kind of rubbish? That is what you people are talking about. People want to have preferences on the basis of democracy, not on the basis of one man, one vote. If you tell me that because I am a Tiv man, that my one vote should not be one vote, but my one vote should be one over 10 of one vote of a Yoruba man. You take 10 Tiv people you join them to become one vote, you take 10 Berom people, you join them to become one vote of somebody from Yoruba land or somebody from Igbo land, I will never agree. This is the debate they are afraid of. The British gave the North advantage by giving us a political system based on democracy and the definition of democracy is that the majority people will always have their own way while the minority might have their own say, not their own way, that is the meaning of democracy anywhere in the world, that is why it becomes necessary to socialize human beings, it is not an issue of right, but socialization; that it is right for these other minorities in terms of their population, let one of them also rule. And when a society develops to a particular place like in the West, even the children of one person can be president three times. In America, Bush was President, another Bush came and he was President another Bush came to try to be President and if he tries it again he might be President. Nigeria is avoiding debate, Nigeria wants us to wait, vote so that the majority population which God gave us in the North should be vitiated so that 20 people from the North should be equal to one person in the West or in the East, it can never happen. We must be very truthful to one another and if Nigerians had allowed the Azikiwes on what they were doing, nobody would have been talking about the North. Awolowo introduced tribalism into Nigerian political process. He was so grossly involved in regionalism that Azikiwe ran away and nobody was talking about Nigerianism any more. Now, we from the North have found out that power is in our number, we will do everything to make sure that Northerners perceive that they have interest in maintaining some fragile unity so that they can always determine who is going to be in power because these people don’t respect us, they felt we are not educated.

Based on the theory of population you have propounded, are you saying that the North will remain in power because of their population?

Yes, if they remain united, but they are not united.

Do you see justice in what the British did when they structured a particular section of the country in such a way that they will always have advantage over others?

It is my dull brain, your dull brain and your sister’s dull brain that brainwashed us into giving tribe such important expression and political evaluation. That is what is stopping Nigeria from developing. My own theory is that, I have been given an assignment. I am the Chairman of Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council, I accepted that not because I need a job, I don’t need any job at 84. I felt that if I could stimulate Nigerian thought, what do we really need as a nation-state? Federalism? Look I am so disappointed, Nigerians are so bright, they can put a man on the moon and bring him back if they want with their own technological advancement. Nigerians can think out any problem, I see what Nigerians are doing in the white man’s world. When I come to this country, I see Nigerians who are stopping other Nigerians from doing what they are doing in the white man’s world in their own world.

There has been this agitation that the Igbo people from the Southeast should be given the opportunity to produce the president in 2023. What is your take on that?

Given the opportunity by who? What do you mean by giving the opportunity? Okay, the tickets by people, the Berom people and other tribes should be given the opportunity to contest too.

Presidential election in Nigeria is done through zoning. Don’t you think that the position should be zoned to the Southeast?

Election by the wisdom of political parties is by zoning. What you people don’t know, is that there is a young man from Cross River who was a governor who insisted on contesting and becoming a presidential candidate of a political party with Prof Jerry Gana. Telling him that he will not, Jerry Gana was proved wrong by the courts and the young man was right. He is the only one I respect as a Nigerian, because you people created a cocoon for yourselves and forced yourselves into the cocoon and then you cry wolf and the wolf is in you. It was the political parties that said, there should be power sharing between the North and the South. I can start agitation that this is North and South thing; when it comes to the North it is always Fulani so I want it to be on the basis of my tribe. If a Fulani has been president, nobody from the North who is a Fulani man should be president again, this will be a ridiculous country, but that is the thing that is being asked.

Looking at the agitation for Igbo presidency…

I will not look at the Igbo Presidency, I will look at Nigerian Presidency. I am not going to be boxed, I am not going to be forced, I am not going to be pushed to play the foolish thing that some people are playing by talking about Igbo Presidency. Tell me why you are not talking about Berom Presidency, tell me why you are not talking about Mangu man?

If a Nigerian comes out from the East in 2023 to contest for presidency, will you mobilize Nigerians to vote for him?

Of course yes. I am encouraging my son, Rochas Okorocha, to come out and stand as president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He has more guts and courage than anybody I have seen from the East. I will support him if he comes out.

Where do you want the Presidency to be zoned to in 2023?

Is that what you mean by restructuring? Let’s say you break Nigeria may be into 24 provinces as it used to be and this time don’t make the mistake of the British, break them evenly, because when you talk about democracy, do you know that Borno State is about four times the total population of Southeast Region and my Benue State in terms of space and land is about one and half times of the total Southeast. What is called South East today, what are you after, do you want us to divide Nigeria in terms of landmass?

But landmass does not translate to population?

That is another lie that you people don’t know. Lagos is not the smallest, you are talking about a metropolis during the colonial days, you are talking about a place that was the headquarters of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for many years, you are talking about a place that all the industries were concentrated, you are talking about a place that is so cosmopolitan. If you go to Lagos you will be shocked that the proper Lagos, there are more Igbo than Yoruba and that is what Lagos is and you have that phenomenon reflected in Kano with one exception. I want to summarize what I have told you: those of you talking about restructuring, the intellectuals are little bit dishonest, they are talking about power sharing and they have at the back of their mind as I do too, an element of, ‘are we being fair to the three mega tribes built by Britain – Yoruba tribe, Hausa tribe and Igbo tribe? These things have entered the intellectual capacity that the Igbo man, the Yoruba man and even Hausa Fulani people daydream that Nigeria is a country of three tribes. It is not true. If you are going to talk about tribes, there are so many tribes in Nigeria and some of these tribes also have political ambition. It is because they didn’t have somebody to lobby for them, they would have wanted to produce the president. Did we award presidency to other tribes and decided that we will not award to the Igbo? Let an Igbo man organise a political party that will involve all the people of Nigeria.

Organise a political party? How?

Yes, we have seen how APC was formed, look at how Buhari came in with other little political parties and it became something that could win an election. Will it be fair to now tell people like Prof Yemi Osinbajo or Tinubu who came into this alliance that at the end of the day it becomes something that should be captured, that an Igbo man has to be president, so after Buhari the ambition of Tinubu should be quashed, the vice president should not nurse the ambition to be president. Tinubu that is the leader of a political party that is winning election should not nurse ambition, will that be fair? Since the presidency is going to the South only somebody from Igbo land can stand as president. I think what I am telling you is that, the Igbo should stop destroying potential Igbo people that are old enough to take up this challenge. I want an Igbo man to organise me like the Yoruba people organised us and I want an Igbo man who will organise us just like the way a Bousa man organised us and we will get to a point that we will not be calling on tribes. If Rochas Okorocha comes and wants to be president of Nigeria I will support him, if Ben Nwabueze is strong and says this place has become upside down, so we men of ideas should try to be president, if I am standing as presidential aspirant and Ben Nwabueze is standing, I will step down for him and I will canvass for him. I canvassed for Zik, I took him across the whole of this nation. I was the General Secretary of the Party that pushed Zik to become the president of this nation. He was Igbo, but we didn’t sit down in one place and said since he was an Igbo, let him be president, no. I presented him to Nigeria and said this is the best material we have as president. We didn’t have money and he was the best material and I was very proud. I didn’t feel I was being disloyal to the North, I didn’t feel I was being disloyal to the Fulani or Tiv, no. I just felt that out of the human beings in the country the best person that could be president then was Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe.

How do you think we can improve on the electoral system in Nigeria, drawing from the 2019 general elections?

I think the election was very good. INEC has tried, Nigeria is a place that you cannot satisfy all, but I said we should adopt the electronic system. I was one of those who went to the last constitutional conference and I insisted that we should all go electronic. I think all the problems that we are having now, ballot box snatching, violence, if we have electronic voting we will go to sleep. As the man is voting at his polling booth, his vote goes straight to the collation centre, elections will be finished in three hours, you can even vote in your house. That will prevent the issue of somebody breaking somebody’s head, there will be no ballot box snatching because there will be no box to snatch. I am hoping that this INEC of Prof Mahmood Yakubu should be bold enough to recommend complete electronic voting. It should be designed in a way as you vote here, result should appear at your polling unit, the state headquarters and at the collation centre in Abuja. The voter should be checked to know if he is the right person that is voting, when we do this and if anybody is trying to cheat, it will be difficult and if he does, he should be taken and put in jail. There will be no killing, there will be no fighting.

How do you view the anti-corruption crusade of President Muhammadu Buhari. Some say it is lopsided, has he achieved anything?

Nigerians are afraid of giving a person who is their political opponent credit, but I am not. I think in the whole history of Nigeria, we have paid lip service to anti-corruption except the man called Buhari. It is only during Buhari’s time that I saw hundreds of thousands of naira seized and displayed on television and people touched them with their hands. We have seen people who are trusted with the responsibility of organising the welfare of people and these got away with it except in Buhari’s administration. So, I say with all sense of responsibility that only one leader in Nigeria has attempted to recoup that which has been stolen by wicked people who ought to be called leaders, but unfortunately they are not leaders. Also, I have been in this country’s public life for not less than 50 years, I have seen only in the administration of Buhari people showed fear that if I steal maybe they will catch me, and if they catch me, this man will disgrace me. So, I say let’s reward Buhari and I thank Nigerians for rewarding Buhari with a second tenure and he deserves it.

Nigerians had high expectations when Buhari came on board…

He didn’t come with high expectations, he came when the country was almost dying and people said he will do better, many people believed in him. Anything that was better than PDP at the end of Jonathan’s administration was the time Buhari came and the man told us that he was going to concentrate on three areas, security, economy and corruption. He said that he cannot allow a sovereign country like Nigeria that boasts of the biggest army in Africa to be humiliated by Boko Haram. Boko Haram had captured, retained and was running administration in 17 local government areas in Nigeria. He said he will beat Boko Haram and he will regain all Nigerian territory back and he will drive them out of existence, he did it. He also said that this economy has been battered and so terribly treated by impunity, he would bring order to this economy, that he will know how money is going out and how it comes in, by streamlining N1 billion account that people take money out. I will streamline all proceeds and receipt of government into one account and I will know how the money is going out and how it is being used, and I will put it to developmental projects, I will develop the infrastructure, I will develop projects that have consequential bearing on the welfare of the people, and I will leverage and dash money to the very poor to help themselves, he did it. Then he said those who steal and make it like a joke, the joke is up. If you steal any money in this country I will make you vomit it, we will show the people when we catch them, if you bring it back I will announce and keep it and use it as Nigerian money, he has done it. So, in terms of his announced policies, he has delivered in all the three, Nigerians were right when he asked of their mandate to re-elect him.

After he won his re-election, he announced that the next four years will be tough. Looking at when he came on board in 2015, Nigerians couldn’t afford a square meal again, price of goods has risen in the market. What should we expect in the next four years?

I think he meant that this is not the time we shouldn’t say we are going to fold our hands and sit down that we have done very well, we will eat and enjoy for tomorrow we die, no. It used to be owambe without work; people eat and enjoy and he said he was going to drive Nigeria to work harder and if I were in a position like him I will say the same thing, because I want an opportunity to lead Nigerians to work.

You were the chairman of Northern Elder’s Forum and you resigned at the peak of herdsmen killings in Benue, Plateau and Taraba states. What informed your decision?

I resigned based on three reasons: one, I felt our government took too long on acting to separate the killers from the poor farmers. I felt that they should have sent police, soldiers to come and stop the killings and I requested for it. I said it, I even went to Mr President with the pictures of people that were killed and women that had their stomach split, I showed these pictures to the Minister of Internal Affairs, but I thank God they are men of honour. The government acts, but sometimes they act too slowly on critical issues that involve human lives. So, men may misunderstand and interpret wrongly that Mr President was interested, I mean even if you are Mr President’s biggest enemy, will you believe that Mr President will organise Fulani herdsmen to kill your people to conquer their land, so that he will gain what? But when you give room for people to say you have sympathy for what is happening and I do know that these people are not Muslims because most of the people who take these cows around are not Muslims. So, I wanted us to have a position and we had a position paper, which we wanted to talk to the President about. The second reason I resigned was that some of the younger people within the Northern Elders Forum that didn’t know what we were fighting requested that I show too much interest in the killing in Plateau and Benue that I called the people my people, I did it, they are my people. To show interest, yes I showed interest, so they said if I couldn’t lead the whole of the North, I should resign because they were pro-Atiku and I said that in the North, if Buhari stood election with Atiku that the people of the North will vote massively for Buhari against Atiku, so did that happen? They said I was partial, I was too concerned about two people which I was happy, I was too concerned about Buhari, I am an intellectual, I am a specialist. So, I couldn’t have been arrogant by telling them that the theoretical thing has happened, so who is right?

Were you compelled to resign?

I was not compelled, I am too old to be compelled by anybody in this world. I don’t want to be anybody’s leader. Those who think I am taking side with anybody they don’t like. Before I was appointed leader of Northern Elders Forum, I was not told that I should not express my opinion, and they said I cannot express my own personal opinion. I cannot tolerate that, so I had to go away so that I can express my own opinion. The last reason was that people were beginning to feel I was enjoying this position. They were feeling that when I am called leader of Northern Elders Forum that I was enjoying it and that I was being compensated. I want to state categorically that there was no financial compensation or social compensation. I was only doing a job which brings my people together. I felt it was good for the people of Northern Nigeria to also have unity.

The Chi And The Odyssey: A Conversation With Chigozie Obioma On “An Orchestra Of Minorities”

Chigozie Obioma image via Los Angeles Review of Books

BY LILY MEYER

CHIGOZIE OBIOMA IS a modern-day mythmaker. His 2015 debut, The Fisherman, earned him huge acclaim — and a spot on the Man Booker shortlist — for its lyricism, wisdom, and emotional reach. InAn Orchestra of Minorities, Obioma spreads his arms even wider. Narrated by a chi, or Igbo guardian spirit, An Orchestra of Minorities tells the story of a young Nigerian chicken farmer named Chinonso who leaves Nigeria to attend college in Cyprus. All he wants is to impress his wealthy girlfriend, Ndali, and her parents, but instead, he finds himself spinning further and further from home.

Chinonso’s story is heartbreaking, even to his chi, who’s seen it all before. The chi’s refrain, in fact, is “I have seen it many times.” The chi is an exceptional narrator: inquisitive, funny, loving, and supernaturally wise. Both Chinonso and his chi are willing to fight destiny — Chinonso for love, and the chi for Chinonso.

I spoke on the phone with Obioma, who is as thoughtful as one might expect from a writer able to embody the voice of a centuries-old guardian spirit. We discussed his own relationship with Igbo religion, the parallels between Chinonso and Odysseus, and whether or not a person can successfully fight their own destiny.

LILY MEYER: How did you develop the chi’s voice? And what elements of your writing did you have to change to make it work?

CHIGOZIE OBIOMA: Conceptualizing the chi was probably the most difficult thing I’ve ever tried to do in my life. When I write fiction, I start with a personal story. For An Orchestra of Minorities, the personal story belonged to Chinonso, who is an avatar for a guy I knew in Cyprus. In some ways, at least. The guy I knew killed himself. Well, there’s debate about whether it was suicide, but like Chinonso, he was defrauded. He goes to Cyprus, finds out he’s lost everything, drinks very much, then — see, I’m speaking in present tense. I’m already talking like it’s the novel. But the real guy went up a three-story building, then fell to his death.

Once I had the personal story, I began thinking about the right form and structure to do the story justice. When the idea that this story’s structure should be the chi came to me, I fought it. I thought, How could I have a chi tell a story? But I kept thinking, and thinking, and gradually the voice took shape. I understood that I’d connect Chinonso, the chi’s current host, to its past hosts, and that the chi would be a constantly reincarnating spirit, around 700 years old, that spoke with an antique, prelapsarian eloquence, and that would be able to deliver these sagely philosophical reflections about how the Igbo people saw the world.

How did you, as a 32-year-old, write the chi’s explanations of human emotion and behavior, which are based on seven centuries of knowledge?

I wanted to write the Paradise Lost of the Igbo people. I’ve always been drawn to the metaphysics of existence and being, to these very primal questions. I live in America, so I see how the West has developed from the primal idea of free will — but what concept was at the bedrock of Igbo civilization, which has been trampled by colonialism? People in my dad’s generation, and in my generation, often have no idea about the complexities of the ways their ancestors lived. To write the chi’s reflections, I had to read a lot, and do field research with my dad. We went to very rural villages where there are still people who practice old Igbo religions. I outlined what I learned from them, and worked that knowledge into the book.

Did that research change your personal worldview? For example, do you react like the chi — which is to say, unhappily — when somebody says, “It is well” or “It will be fine” to you?

Yes! The last time I was in Nigeria, somebody said, “It is well,” and I found myself laughing almost hysterically. I’d just sent the last draft of the book to my editor, and I remembered the chi right away. Or yesterday, while teaching my last class of the semester, I began talking about the concept of grief. I found myself telling these American kids my ideas about grief, which are now mostly Igbo cosmological and philosophical beliefs.

I’m curious about the interplay between Igbo and Christian ontology in the book. The chi seems pretty annoyed by Christianity, but how much does it affect Chinonso’s worldview?

Chinonso used to be Christian. He stopped going to church, which came from my idea that there are multiple forms of colonialism. In some forms, the colonized nation got to retain their civilization, religion, or culture. But in Africa, due to the erroneous belief that black people were not sophisticated in any way, colonialism was seen as a civilizing project. It was very sweeping. Nations were dismantled completely. While I was writing An Orchestra of Minorities, I went looking for a 16th- or 17th-century house. I wanted the chi to be able to describe how the Igbos used to live. I managed to see one in Nigeria, but I saw six or seven in Virginia, in a place called the Frontiers Museum. It’s a living museum, with reenactors, and there were more Igbo houses than I’d been able to find in Nigeria. When I wondered what the chi must think about Christianity, I thought of the houses, and I decided the chi would be repulsed. It would want Chinonso to depart from Christianity completely.

An Orchestra of Minorities relies strongly on fate and predetermination. How did you use those ideas to create dramatic tension?

When I was a child, I always heard my granny and my parents talking about chis. They would say, “This was the agreement between that person and his chi.” I was sickly, and when they took me to the hospital, I’d hear them tell each other, “This child has a weak chi. His chi can’t bargain for its host to get better.” That idea is very different from the Judeo-Christian belief in free will. Take Paradise Lost. Milton believed in foreknowledge, not predestination. His God wanted humankind to be able to choose. That was Milton’s explanation for evil and sin.

The Igbo tradition doesn’t have that orientation. Instead, there’s a reliance on supernatural transactions. Your chi has to fight on your behalf. You can make choices, but your chi will warn you, and steer you away from mistakes. It neutralizes your complete ability to choose. I wanted to reconcile that force with the idea of free will, to write about those two concepts competing in one individual’s life. An Orchestra of Minorities is the result of me putting those two opposing ideas together. It’s a very complicated process, and one I don’t fully understand yet myself.

Chinonso is a complicated man, but he likes to act in an un-complicated way. I’m thinking particularly about a moment in Cyprus when the chi gets frustrated because Chinonso has so many questions, but doesn’t ask them. Why did you write him that way?

I was thinking about Jay, the man I knew in Cyprus. I wanted to create a man of basic innocence. There’s a line about how Chinonso’s experiences change him, and that works because he starts so innocent. He’s connected to nature; he tends chickens. In Nigeria, he’s very low in the stratified class structure. He’s not respected; he doesn’t have much ambition; he doesn’t aspire to do much in the world.

Why does Chinonso call his girlfriend Ndali “Mommy,” rather than a more conventional endearment? Ndali asks him about it a few times, but I want to know how you came up with it.

It comes from an eccentric guy at the first college I attended in Nigeria. He was a very humble person, I think. He was diminutive in structure, not very tall, and he was elderly, but he called everyone “Uncle,” even those of us who were younger than him. This is in a society where respectability is a very serious thing. One of the most cardinal sins you can commit is to call an elderly person by their first name, but the guy called us “Uncle.” So when I was trying to create Chinonso, the lowly man, I remembered him.

The chi loves comparing Ndali and Chinonso’s relationship to Penelope and Odysseus’. Why is that?

I’m very fond of the Odyssey. I read it when I was a child, and I’ve never stopped thinking about it. Here, Chinonso’s return to Ndali is like Odysseus’ return to Penelope. From the moment he leaves Nigeria, his journey to get back to her begins. And since Chinonso knows the Odyssey — he’s watched the movie — the chi can use that parallel love story as a device to encourage him to keep going.

Do you consider Chinonso an epic hero?

Yes. His journey spans continents. He displaces himself, and then has to recover what he’s lost. You know, during my research, I learned that the Igbo people believe in a forgotten kind of reincarnation: not the reincarnation of the body or the spirit, but the reincarnation of events. Something can happen to you in 2010, then come back in a different form 10 years later. That’s another way to see Chinonso’s journey. It begins when he saves a gosling as a little boy. His father kills the mother goose, and Chinonso saves the gosling, then loses it. That event repeats in his life.

Do you feel more emotionally connected to the chi, or to Chinonso?

Chinonso. I know most people will think An Orchestra of Minorities is the chi’s book, but to me, the personal story is most important. I always say that the books I love lend themselves to a tripartite level of interpretation. There’s the personal, then the conceptual, then the author’s commentary. So the book has all my ideas about free will, fate, destiny, and love, but the personal story comes first.

Lily Meyer is a writer and translator living in Washington, DC.

RISD Graduate Oge Mora’s Picture Book ‘Thank You, Omu!’ Wins Widespread Acclaim

BY KATHIE RALEIGH

PROVIDENCE JOURNAL

Mora, who grew up in Ohio and now lives in Providence, wrote and illustrated “Thank You, Omu!”, which grew out of a class assignment.

When Oge Mora signed up for the Picture and Word class as an undergraduate at the Rhode Island School of Design, she had no inkling of its importance.

“I never thought of myself as a picture book illustrator,” the Rhode Island resident says. “I took the course, and then everything else just fell to the wayside. It wasn’t work; it felt so natural.”

Now, that natural talent is being honored. Her first picture book, “Thank You, Omu!” has won a string of awards, including the 2019 Ezra Jack Keats Award for an illustrator, presented this month by the foundation named for the children’s author and illustrator, in partnership with the de Grummond Children’s Literature Collection at the University of Southern Mississippi. The award comes with a $3,000 prize.

Her book also received a Caldecott Honor Award and recognition from the New York Times, Boston Globe, Publishers Weekly and the School Library Journal as among the best children’s books for 2018. A Providence Journal review called the book “joyful” and cited its “expressive collage pictures.”

“It’s been a wild ride,” the 2016 RISD graduate says.

She traces her award-winning book’s origins to a “concrete moment” in that Picture and Word class when professor Judy Sue Goodwin Sturges told her, “I think you should do painted collage.” Mora, an illustration major, had dabbled in collage, “but she hadn’t yet used it as her voice,” Sturges says.

For inspiration, Sturges referred Mora to the work of Romare Bearden, whom the New York Times called “the nation’s foremost collagist” in his 1988 obituary, and Ezra Jack Keats. The latter’s work, Sturges says, “really got her going. She’d tap on my door, asking, ‘Is this good?’”

“I had so much fun,” Mora remembers. “I had fun painting paper, playing around with colors and textures.” She compares collage to putting together a jigsaw puzzle.

Every week, students had to come up with an idea and illustrations for a picture book, and “Thank You, Omu!” started with an assignment to tell a reductive or a productive story: one in which something is lost, or something is gained.


“I thought the more interesting narrative would be if something were lost and gained,” Mora says. She enjoys cooking and began thinking about her Nigerian grandmother’s spicy red stew.

The family always called her grandmother Omu, the Igbo word for queen, and in Mora’s fictional story, Omu is preparing a pot of stew for dinner. As the fragrance of the simmering stew drifts out her apartment window, it attracts the attention of a diverse group of city residents and workers who knock on the door and ask for a taste.

Omu generously shares bowl after bowl of stew until, when it’s time for her own dinner, there is nothing left. Then comes another knock on the door, followed by all the folks who had sampled her stew, bringing food to her.


“This isn’t a didactic book,” says Deborah Pope, executive director of the Brooklyn, N.Y.-based Ezra Jack Keats Foundation, established by the late children’s book author best known for the 1963 Caldecott Medal-winning “The Snowy Day.”

The foundation looks for books that reflect different cultures, but foremost, Pope says, “These are books that kids love and parents love to read. They are an enjoyable bridge between cultural and racial divides.”

The awards are reserved for authors and illustrators early in their careers, and Pope says publishers send upward of 400 books for consideration each year. A committee of nationally recognized early childhood education specialists, librarians, illustrators and experts in children’s literature chooses two honorees, an illustrator and a writer. This year’s writing award goes to John Sullivan for “Kitten and the Night Watchman.”

Mora came to the attention of publisher Little, Brown Books for Young Readers after Sasha Illingworth, executive art director and RISD graduate, took part in the final review of work for the Picture and Word class.

Illingworth says she got goose bumps when she saw Mora present her book. “Her artwork was stunning and her story had heart.” As someone who was a student in Sturges’ class 19 years ago, “it meant so much to me that I could go back and help a fellow RISD student achieve their dream.”

Mora received a two-book offer, and her second book, “Saturday,” about the misadventures of a mother and daughter, will come out in October. She also is illustrating books written by other authors.

Now a Providence resident, Mora based the city where Omu lives on Columbus, Ohio, where she grew up. “I sketched cityscapes as a kid, and a city lends itself to collage; it looks sort of like a patchwork.

“I was always doodling. Everything was my canvas,” she recalls. Sometimes her father joined in, but he is an accountant by profession. Her mother is a pharmacist, and there are no other artists among her five sisters and two brothers.

“But there always was a big pot of stew,” she says with a laugh.

“It’s been a joy watching Oge succeed and to see readers respond so warmly to her heartfelt work,” says April Prince, a RISD lecturer and the “word” side of the Picture and Word team.

“Oge is a gem, and that comes through in her stories,” Prince adds. “She brought a lot of natural talent, insight, and passion to class, but she worked hard as well. We hope she’ll be making books and touching readers for many years to come.”

— Kathie Raleigh is a Rhode Island-based freelance writer.

Should The Law Be Used To Curb Hate Speech In Nigeria?

Jidefor Adibe image via Linkedin

BY JIDEOFOR ADIBE

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

THE INCREASING PROBLEM OF HATE SPEECH IN NIGERIA

The hate speech bill in Nigeria has prescribed death by hanging for any person found guilty of any form of hate speech that results in the death of another person. The bill—in early stages of becoming law—seeks the establishment of an independent commission to enforce hate speech laws across the country. For offenses such as harassment on grounds of ethnicity or race, the bill recommends that the offender be sentenced to “not less than a five-year jail term or a fine of not less than 10 million naira (about $277,000), or both.”

Offensive and hateful speech has been a challenge in Nigeria. If it has to do with the Nigerian Civil War, Igbo nationalists take offense with the rest of the country; if it is about Boko Haram and its alleged sponsors, self-appointed defenders of the North are up in arms with equally self-appointed defenders of the South; if it has to do with resource control and oil politics, the North squares off against the South. The Igbos and the Yoruba, rival major ethnic groups, frequently pick on each other.

Hate and offensive speech profiling reached a pinnacle in the country in June 2017, when a coalition of Northern youth groups issued a Kaduna Declaration which, apart from calling the Igbos unprintable names, gave all Igbos in the North three months (until October 1, 2017) to leave. The reaction stemmed from harsh pro-Biafra rhetoric of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra. While it is true that Nnamdi Kanu had engaged in a form of rhetoric offensive to many people, the quit notice given to the Igbos in the North triggered competitive quit notices to vacate.

Though the notices were later withdrawn, they led to palpable fears that the situation could degenerate to a Rwanda-like genocide unless the tide of free-flowing offensive and hate speech in the country was stemmed.

IMPACT OF HATE SPEECH ON SOCIETY

In a heterogeneous and polarized country like Nigeria, hate speech threatens the nation-building process by widening the social distance among Nigerians, cementing existing distrust, and undermining national support. Hate speech can also negatively affect the economy. For instance, in the face of the quit notice given to the Igbos in northern Nigeria, some Igbo businessmen refused to entertain any credit request from customers, Igbos and non-Igbos alike, until after the October 1 deadline. Further, deposit money banks, already risk averse from high non-performing loans, became even more unwilling to lend during the quit notice period. The competitive quit notice, respectively given to the Igbos living in the North and the Northerners and Yorubas living in the Niger Delta, could curtail the willingness of Nigerians to invest in the regions other than their own because of the risk of future quit notices.

THE HATE SPEECH BILL AND ITS CRITICS

Several organizations such as the Ijaw Youth Council, the International Press Centre, and the Punch newspaper as well as eminent Nigerians such as Senator Shehu Sani have condemned the bill on several grounds:

Problem of definition

One of the criticisms is that the bill poorly defines hate speech, especially when differentiating between hate speech and offensive speech. Though hurtful, offensive speech is believed to be a protected freedom of expression, a critical component of a functioning democracy. Instead, the bill essentially regards even insulting or abusive speeches as hate speech, a vague and dangerous categorization. Defining hate speech in a way that delineates it from offensive speech has been a tall task for policymakers and academics around the world—including Susan Benesch at Harvard, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and many others. Some believe that the term “hate speech” should only be used for extreme cases such as speeches that explicitly call for the physical injury or extermination of certain people.
Attack on free speech

Another criticism of the bill is that it could provide a cover for the government to attack free speech, which in a democracy, is important both for prevalence of truth and for citizens to effectively participate in the democratic process. Hate speech laws have been used to suppress and punish left-wing viewpoints in Europe. Similarly, South Africa’s hate crimes bill has been criticized for being vulnerable to abuses that would undermine free speech.

HATE SPEECH LAWS AROUND THE WORLD

Apart from criticisms of the language of the bill, the effectiveness of such a law is questionable. In countries like France, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, offensive and hate speeches are prohibited by law. In contrast, laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States. In U.S. courts, even “fighting words,” categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment, are not easy to separate from hate speech.

But does hate speech occur less in countries that use the law to fight it than in countries that do not or do little? It is debatable, but clearly laws can sometimes exacerbate the problem. For example, in the Australian state of Victoria, the law banning incitement to religious hatred led to Christians and Muslims accusing each other of inciting hatred and bringing legal actions against each other, further inflaming community relations. Besides, even if the law is effective in curbing hate speech in countries where the basis of statehood has long been settled, we cannot assume that the same will apply in Nigeria where the country is extremely polarized and the basis of statehood remains contested. If influential and controversial Nigerian figures like Junaid Mohammed, Edwin Clark, Professor Ben Nwabueze, Gani Adams, Professor Ango Abdullahi, Asari Dokubo, and others who hold provocative views are convicted of hate speech in Nigeria, it would most likely further foment social unrest.

THE WAY FORWARD

A starting point is to recognize that the line between offensive and hate speech is often blurred. While proper hate speech—what I define as presenting “clear and imminent danger” of triggering violence—should be criminalized (but certainly not with death penalty), non-legal instruments would be more effective in a polarized society like Nigeria to deal with offensive and other hurtful speech forms. In this respect, a taxonomy of what constitutes hate and offensive speeches would be good foundation. Media organizations through their unions should then be urged to incorporate these as part of good journalistic practice and impose sanctions on erring members.

Perhaps one of the most effective ways of combating hate speech would be to marginalize purveyors of such speeches. In the U.K., while far-right, fascist parties like the British National Party and the racist ideas they support are not banned, mainstream British politician avoid associating openly with members of such parties. In Nigeria, on the other hand, offensive and hate speech mongers are often seen as regional and ethnic heroes.

Nigerians should also learn to laugh at themselves. This is already happening in some ways with the country’s comedians who dish out jokes breaking down the lines of ethnic and regional profiling, showing that every ethnic group is both a victim and a victimizer.

The National Orientation Agency—responsible for communicating government policy and promoting patriotism—in concert with civil society groups and community leaders, should also embark on a campaign against the use of hate speech. In the same vein, internet service providers should be encouraged to bring down blogs and websites they host which publish, promote, or provide unfettered space for the expression of hate and offensive speeches. Put simply, more than just changing the law, it will take efforts from all sections of society—government, media, business, community leaders, civil society, and more—to curb the influence of hate speech in Nigeria.

Note: Jideofor Adibe is an associate professor of political science at Nasarawa State University, Keffi, the founding editor of the quarterly academic journal African Renaissance, a weekly columnist with the Daily Trust, one of Nigeria’s leading newspapers, and the publisher of Adonis & Abbey Publishers, a London-based publisher of academic books and journals as well as the online newspaper, The News Chronicle. He can be reached at editor@adonis-abbey.com.

Benin Dialogue Group Removes Restitution Of Benin Artefacts From Its Agenda

Queen-mother Idia, Benin, Nigeria, now in Humboldt Forum, Berlin, Germany. Would she come back home to Benin City on a temporary loan?

BY KWAME OPOKU

As for the ownership status of the works, who does not know that Benin is the true owner despite the semantics and legalese by the international community?

We have had enough of these meetings which only end as academic exercise.’

Prince Edun Agharese, Enogie of Obazuwa . (1)

We received a copy of an article entitled Benin Dialogue Group: Benin Royal Museum-: Three Steps Forward, Six Steps Back by Folarin Shyllon in Art, Antiquity and Law (2). This is an interesting article because Shyllon has participated in all the meetings of the Benin Dialogue Group since its inception and therefore has information which many of us are not privileged to have. I have a lot of respect for Folarin Shyllon’s achievements in this area and can say I have read his contributions that are easily available to the normal reader. He explains in the article some of the activities of the Benin Dialogue Group. My own impressions of this group are contained in several articles that are also easily available on the internet. (3)

Towards the end of the above-mentioned article, under the heading, a MISSTEP and in CONCLUSION Shyllon launches a surprising attack on my person, by name, at least 4 times. I intended to ignore these comments because such attacks and responses might distract from the main objective, that is the restitution of looted African art to which both of us are committed but approach in different styles and ways, depending on our personalities and the opportunities we have to make our contributions. But I was advised that since he is making allegations of fact, in the interest of scholarship, somebody must answer, and I may be the best to do so. Besides, he may have been writing these attacks on behalf of a group of persons who cannot tolerate that an African, on his own, without being employed to do so, comments on the activities of persons selected by the museums and their governments to deal with an issue of common concern.

The relevant parts of Shyllon’s article that may not be easily available to all are reproduced below for the reader’s convenience and also to allow quick reference to what is alleged and the answer thereto. (4) We shall also use his headings to facilitate the reader’s search for what we are commenting on as well as indicate the innuendos, insinuations, and hidden insults therein.

A MISSTEP

After criticising the Benin Dialogue Group (BDG) for rejecting the whole notion of restitution, Shyllon writes ‘

’ wholesale rejection of restitution as a matter of interest to the group should not have been so carelessly jettisoned. The point is being made because it gives fodder to some critics of the Benin Dialogue Group. In a reference to the Cambridge Statement, Kwame Opoku wrote: “We have the so-called Dialogue Group on Benin City proposing a strange scheme whereby some of the looted Benin artefacts would be displayed in Benin City, but ownership of the artefacts would be with Western museums. And they find some Africans to approve of such a ridiculous and insulting proposal (emphasis added). (Emphasis by Shyllon)

Shyllon criticises the BDG of which he has been a member or at least, attending all their meetings from its inception. He is here acting as a party and judge in his own case. He faults them for rejecting restitution not so much because this is a wrong attitude ‘The point is being made because it gives fodder to some critics of the Benin Dialogue Group’ and immediately refers to Kwame Opoku.’ So, the BDG gives fodder to Opoku. My Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English, Eight Edition, OUP,2010 defines fodder as follows:

1. food for horses and farm animals. 2. (disapprovingly) (often after a noun) people or things that are considered to have only one use: Without education, these children will end up as factory fodder (=only able to work in a factory) This will be fodder for the gossip columnist.

Shyllon is apparently angry that I described the proposal for loan of looted Benin artefacts to Nigerians by the very State that looted them or hold them as ridiculous and insulting proposal. I still believe such a proposal is insulting if you consider the people who lost their lives in the invasion of 1897, the burning of Benin City, the general destruction and violence ensuing from the attack and the fact that the State that looted the artefacts has kept them for more that hundred years and is still not willing even to restitute some of the artefacts. This is matter of evaluation of the historical facts and the proposal in the present world context where we have the impression we are moving towards restitution. Shyllon himself mentions the famous Declaration at Ouagadougou by French President Emmanuel Macron who has declared his intention to make restitution of looted African artefacts in French Museums. Shyllon himself refers to the report by Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy who have recommended restitution of looted African artefacts in French museums which were not obtained with the consent of the African owners.[PDF] The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational restitutionreport2018.com/sarr_savoy_en.pdf

Since Shyllon himself criticises the BDG for rejecting restitution, why does he say that ‘it is ill-advised for him [Opoku] to dub it ridiculous and insulting? They are wrong but I should not criticise them. Why did we then go to university at all if in the end we cannot even criticize those who are wrong. Why? Because they are Europeans who would expect the usual African deference? Are they entitled to expect the same from those who have had the same or similar education as the Europeans they are dealing with?

Shyllon declares that ‘It is possible that Dr. Opoku is unfamiliar with resolution of South Korea French impasse with regard to the Oe-KyuJangGak royal archives’. So Shyllon is accusing me here of ignorance. There may be some restitution cases that I am not familiar with but anyone who has even a cursory acquaintance with my hundreds of articles on restitution would be surprised that despite all my activities, I am unfamiliar with the most elementary case that is discussed in French-speaking circles whenever the issue of restitution comes up. I checked the author Shyllon’s sources of information and realized that he consulted and refers to several articles in Elginism. But this is precisely the place where I published a long note on the French-Korean dispute regarding the Korean royal manuscripts which I reproduced below in annex II. (4) Could I be unfamiliar with a case when I wrote a note on the same case nine years ago at the same place Shyllon was looking for information? Did he see my note or did he not?

Besides, Shyllon has discussed the South Korean-French impasse in a contribution he made to Peju Layiwola’s book Benin 1897.com Art and the Restitution Question, pp.61-90. Immediately following Shyllon’s contribution is my own contribution, at pp.91-107, entitled ‘One Counter-Agenda from Africa: Would Western Museums Return Looted Objects if Nigeria and Other African States Were Ruled by Angels? (5) Did Shyllon presume that I would not read his contribution in a book where I also have a contribution?

We presume that Shyllon has seen the notice on the Atelier juridique in Document 3 of the Sarr-Savoy report which he cites in his article. That notice clearly indicates that among the subjects to be discussed on 26 June 2018 at the College de France within the Atelier juridique, Legal Workshop, in the First Session was a paper by Kwame Opoku on the German Guidelines for handling of collections acquired in colonial contexts and in the Second Session a paper on the return of the Korean archives, returned by France to South Korea presented by Stephane Duroy, to be followed by discussions. He would also have noticed that in the Fourth Session in the afternoon, there was to be a reflection on the various models of return with discussants including Kwame Opoku. How can Shyllon then presume that it is possible that Dr. Opoku is unfamiliar with the French-South Korean impasse which was discussed by top French specialists on the issue? (6) A very strange presumption by someone who has read the Sarr-Savoy report.

Professor Shyllon does not refer to the offer of loan of looted Ethiopian artefacts made to the Ethiopians by the Victoria and Albert Museum. (7) We cannot presume that the author Shyllon was not aware of a case that was widely discussed in several papers. If he mentioned the Ethiopian case, he would have had to add that the proud Ethiopians roundly objected to an offer of a loan that was seen as an affront to their history and dignity. (8)

Shyllon states that there is a precedent for what is being proposed to Nigerians regarding the Benin artefacts and it is therefore not a ‘strange scheme’ as Opoku suggested. And it is ill-advised for him to dub it ‘ridiculous and insulting.’ Shyllon is here pleading for the proposed loan. He mentions one precedent. But he must know that one precedent is not enough to establish a case when there are dozens of other precedents that go in a different direction. The attempt to present the offer of loan from the Europeans to Nigeria as something normal is clearly contradicted by all the various cases of restitution that we know. (9)

When Italians, Peruvians, Turks and others asked for the restitution of their looted artefacts, the artefacts were either returned as requested or were denied and nobody ever proposed to them loans of their own looted artefacts.

The British Museum has proposed to the Greeks a loan of the Parthenon Marbles if they would recognize first the legal ownership of the British Museum. The proud Greeks have rejected the ridiculous offer.

When Germans asked the Russians to return German artworks looted by the Red Army towards the end of the last world war, nobody spoke about loans. They were denied. Would they accept a loan of looted German works from the Russians? Yet Germans turn around and propose a loan of looted Benin artefacts to Nigerians. Has anybody ever proposed a loan of looted Chinese artefacts to China? Europeans have too much respect for the Chinese to make such a ridiculous proposal. But for Africans?

As I write this article, I have received information that Italy is returning 800 artefacts to China Did they not think about loans?

If Shyllon does not find the idea of those who looted Nigerian artefacts loaning them to Nigeria ‘insulting,’ I cannot do much about that. Perhaps we should remind ourselves what Professor Tunde Babawale, Director, Centre for Black and African Arts and Civilisation (CBAAC) wrote:

‘There is no question about the fact that Africa (Nigeria inclusive) has had her artefacts mindlessly looted by her colonial masters and in the Nigerian instance, the British. This is why the Centre for Black and African Arts and Civilisation (CBAAC)has remained resolutely committed to the struggle for the return of artefacts looted from every part of the African continent. This has met with responses (especially from the British Museum) that appear not only insulting to our collective sensibility, but which fail to recognise the imperative of moving with time, away from the stereotype of flaunting expertise in being custodians of the wealth of others without consent.’ (10)

Venus of Cyrene looted by Italians in 1915 and restituted to Libya in 2008.

It is ironical that in the article we are discussing, as well as in his previous article published in the same book as Prof. Babawale’s article, Shyllon makes a statement to the effect that: ‘The appropriation of a nations art treasures has always been regarded as a trophy of war which adds to the glory of the victor and the humiliation of the vanquished. The practice has often been condemned in the past. In 1812, Sir Alexander Croke had a collection of prints and paintings returned to the Philadelphia Academy of Arts on the grounds that the arts and sciences are recognised by all civilised countries as forming an exception to the strict laws of war. They are considered as not being owned by a particular nation but as the property of the entire human race. Even when belonging to the State, cultural property must be treated as privately owned, that is, as fully protected against seizure, destruction or defacement. To return them would therefore be in conformity with the law of nations, as practised by all civilised countries.’ (11)

CONCLUSION.

Folarin Shyllon writes in his conclusion as follows.

Is it by refusing to take part in the activities of the Dialogue Group that the antiquities will return? The author Opoku, referred to above, has over the years published many strident articles calling for the return of African artefacts. Yet no Benin bronze or other looted or stolen African artefact has over this period returned to Africa. Therefore the reproach to ‘some Africans’ engaging in a dialogue with Western museums is misguided. Is half a loaf not better than none at all? An ‘all or nothing’ approach to restitution has proven to be a road that leads nowhere. Be that as it may, the dissembling on the issue of restitution in the Leiden Statement is unfortunate. It is a backward step that is quite unnecessary. The Dialogue Group started unambiguously with the twin objectives of restitution and lease. They are two sides of the same coin, and it is quite unhelpful to abandon restitution in the Leiden Statement. Still, the criticism of the Dialogue Group by Kwame Opoku leaves much to be desired. If the British Museum and the Ethnology Museum, Berlin were today to declare that they would release 100 pieces each of the Benin antiquities in their possession, is there a museum in Lagos, Abuja or Benin City that can adequately house them and ensure their safety and proper handling?’

We will try to disentangle this bag of attacks as far as possible.

a). Is it by refusing to take part in the activities of the Dialogue Group that the antiquities will return?

Nobody has asked me whether they should take part in the activities of the BDG or not but if I should be asked for advice, I would answer as follows: Talk to them by all means but if they declare clearly that the question of restitution is not part of the agenda, you must decide whether it is worth your while to attend such a meeting. Prince Edun Agharese Akenzua, Enogie of Obazuwa, representative of the Oba at the meeting which discussed the so-called Benin Plan of Action in 2013, is reported to have declared that’ there is nothing in the Plan of Action that really addresses restitution ‘.

It is difficult not to agree with the opinion of the prince who is well versed in the issue of restitution of the Benin artefacts, having represented the Oba at various places where the matter was discussed. (12)

b). Then follows a statement by Shyllon which really surprised me. ‘The author Opoku, referred to above, has over the years published many strident articles calling for the return of African artefacts. Yet no Benin bronze or other looted or stolen African artefact has over this period returned to Africa’


My Oxford Dictionary defines ‘strident’ as follows:

Having a loud, rough and unpleasant sound: a strident voice, strident music
Aggressive and determined: He is a strident advocate of nuclear power, strident criticism.

It is somewhat ironical that calling for justice in a case where a city has been burnt, many people killed as a result of foreign military invasion, one is described as aggressive. More aggressive than the guns and bullets that extinguished many individuals in 1897? But can Syhllon truly declare that

c). Yet no Benin bronze or other looted or stolen African artefact has over this period returned to Africa?

Regarding Benin bronzes, we recall that one Dr. Mark Walker of Britain returned some Benin artefacts his grandfather had left him to Benin and was received with joy and gratitude. The Nigerian papers were all full of this joyful news and many articles on the issue were published. Shyllon’s views were reported on the handling of the return process by National Commission on Museums and Monuments. (13)

What about the objects the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, returned to Nigeria? What about all the artefacts that were returned to Egypt when Zahi Hawass was in charge of the Antiquities Department there or does Shyllon adopt a Hegelian view that Egypt is not part of Africa? (14) What about all the objects the Nigerian National Commission of Museums and Monuments celebrated as the return of Nigerian treasures? Nigeria Celebrates Return of Lost Treasures: The Lost Nigerian Nigerian Treasures Are Not Yet Back...

These were of course not as a result of restitution in our understanding, but they were objects returned to Nigeria even if they were not treasures as the NCMM would have us believe. What about the Axum obelisk that was restituted by Italy to Ethiopia? What about the Venus of Cyrene that was restituted by Italy to Libya? What about the return of the Makonde mask from Barbier Muller, Switzerland to Tanzania? Shyllon wrote an article on this subject entitled, ‘Return of Makonde Mask from Switzerland to Tanzania: A Righteous Conclusion? (Art, Antiquity and Law Vol 16, Issue1 2011). What about his article entitled ‘Repatriation of Antiquities to Sub-Saharan Africa: The Agony and the Ecstasy? (July 2014 issue of Art, Antiquity and Law)

It is clear, even from his own writings that the assertion that no artefact was returned to Africa in the period that, i.e.2007-2019, cannot be sustained. The evidence against that assertion is simply overwhelming. Since Shyllon was also writing during this period, should both of us stop writing?

Syhllon’s statement that no article was returned in the period is also remarkable from another point of view. Did anybody ever believe that, the looted artefacts would be restituted as a result of an article or articles? We are not so naïve as to overestimate the power of our writing. My writing is not aimed directly at bringing home the looted artefacts for more is required than that. My aim has been to keep the restitution question, especially as regard the Benin treasures, on the agenda of all and in that respect, some suggest that I have achieved a measure of success. My other aim has been to inform our African public about the issues in this field and to equip our youth with sufficient arguments for discussing them.

Most of our governments and their institutions have not considered the importance of public education and in many cases mislead the public. When the question of a loan of the Benin bronzes is discussed, the differences between returning an object on loan and restitution are obscured so that when people hear that Benin bronzes are coming home, they believe they are returning forever and are not informed that the items are on loan for a limited period. Nobody informs us about the length of period of the loan, who pays for the transportation and the cost of the loan and the insurance premium. Nobody tells us about the numbers involved and which museums are sending which objects. The immunity from legal process that was sought for the looted objects to be returned to Nigeria is no longer openly mentioned. Indeed, the holders of the looted artefacts have till today, with a few exceptions, not told us the total number of Benin objects they are holding. We have from time to time established a list of holders of the Benin bronzes and their numbers. Nobody has corrected our numbers. They prefer the public to remain uninformed and yet this will be the minimum we could expect from the holders of the Benin artefacts. We are left in the dark.

d). Therefore, the reproach to ‘some Africans’ engaging in a dialogue with Western museums is misguided.

We have no objections to engaging in discussions with Western museums. After all, they are still holding our looted treasures. But if they declare they do not want to talk about what we consider a priority, i.e. the restitution of Benin and other treasures, the question arises whether there is any point in talking to them. Talk to them about building museums which should be none of their business.? Nigeria can surely build her museums without submitting her plans to the imperialist holders of the Benin bronzes. Nigerians are not beggars.

We ourselves have engaged in talks with holders of Benin bronzes and other African artefacts when they have explicitly stated that they are interested in restitution. Shyllon should read carefully again the Sarr-Savoy report. Any insinuation that one is somehow against the Western museums or their governments is of course, ridiculous. The criticisms that I make have been made by others, perhaps not with the same consistency and passion. Shyllon himself has also criticised Western museums without anybody thinking that he does not want to talk to them. (15)

e). Is half a loaf not better than none at all? An ‘all or nothing’ approach to restitution has proven to be a road that leads nowhere.

To Shyllon’s question whether half-a loaf is not better than none at all, my answer will be that it depends on what loaf you are talking about and what half is proposed. To stay with the loaf example. If I know that I am entitled to a full loaf as all the others, but when my turn comes, I am offered half-a loaf, I will refuse it and complain that I have been cheated. Especially, if I know my brother and other members of my family or town will present themselves for their entitlements, I would definitely not accept half a loaf for fear of prejudicing the chances of the others. Shyllon does not tell us in terms of artefacts, what will be half a loaf. We hope he is not thinking of relief plaque of a Benin dignitary, with one half, the upper part in Berlin and the lower part, in Hamburg. A real mutilation of a relief. In this case it is surely preferable that we forsake our half loaf and let one museum have the whole relief. This obviously is not part of the thinking of Western museums otherwise the mutilated dignitary would, in the past hundred years, have been put together. Similarly, one knows that the British Museum is not impressed by the argument that the Parthenon Marbles should be re-united in Athens. Indeed, MacGregor and the British Museum seem to believe this is a perfect distribution. (16)

Does Shyllon have here information which we are not aware of? Have the Germans perhaps stated that they would share the bulk of 508 to 580 Benin artefacts they have in Berlin? If half a loaf here refers to half of the 508 pieces, I would gladly accept the 254 pieces. Thus sometimes, half a loaf would be acceptable but not always as Shyllon seems to assume. If we know that Ethiopia would be the next to ask for her artefacts or has already asked for them, half a loaf would be prejudicial to their claims after Nigeria has accepted half-a loaf of what is available. Could the Ghanaians probably, pragmatically, accept half of the looted Golden Mask in the Wallace Collection and thus destroy forever the sculpture said to be the finest specimen of Asante skill in gold works? I can tell Shyllon that if Nigeria goes through with a loan of her looted artefacts, Ethiopia, Ghana and all other African States would be told in future that they will have to accept loans as Nigeria has done and that it would be unfair to Nigeria to give them a better deal. Let us all mark this.

We should have no illusions. Loan of an artefact is not half way or pre-step to restitution. The two concepts are different and any idea that Nigeria/Benin could get a loan now which may in future be converted to restitution is a grave mistake. There is no ground to believe, with all due respect, that those who are not willing to consider restitution now will somehow change their minds in due course and accept restitution. This can only be entertained on the basis of misunderstanding or underestimating the determination not to part with artefacts the Europeans and other Westerners have detained for more than a hundred years. There has never been a better time for restitution than now. Besides, there is no doubt as to which is preferable. Whilst the one puts Nigeria in a position of dependant, the other would make Nigeria owner of the objects. Whereas restitution signifies the beginning of a new era, a loan guarantees the continuation of the old relationship of power and weakness, with all the possibilities of disputes not so much about the initial looting but about the implementation of the loan agreement. The terms of the loan agreement must be strictly observed and any pretence to ownership will surely be corrected.

When the pressure on the European powers and museums is reduced, as it will be, whether we agree to loans or secure restitutions, there will be less interest for them to contemplate restitution; they would have overcome the bad conscience they all seem to have. The ability to mobilize support amongst the African peoples who have not been told the difference between restitution and loans, would be considerably reduced if not non-existent.

Shyllon seems to deliver his ultimate heavy blow in this statement:

e) If the British Museum and the Ethnology Museum, Berlin were today to declare that they would release 100 pieces each of the Benin antiquities in their possession, is there a museum in Lagos, Abuja or Benin City that can adequately house them and ensure their safety and proper handling?

This question is properly addressed to those officials who are paid to preserve and protect Nigeria’s cultural heritage and have been provided the means to perform their functions. Whether the means are adequate or not, they have to settle that with the Nigerian parliament and authorities. But since the question has apparently been posed to me as a critic, I will try to answer as best as I can.

This question is what I call idle hypothesis. It is like the question, what would you do if you were alone on an island in the Pacific.? We know very well you will never be alone on an island in the Pacific, but it is entertaining to discuss what you would do.

Shyllon knows very well that the British Museum and the Ethnology Museum, Berlin that have been refusing for ages to return even a single Benin artefact, are not likely to send soon 100 pieces each to Nigeria. If it were not so, why have there been so much discussion on the issue of restitution of Benin artefacts? He knows that in the matter of artefacts, museums do not suddenly make such a declaration. It takes ages to get even the smallest concession from a museum about artefacts. In 2007, during the symposium organized in connection with the exhibition Benin: Kings and Rituals-Court Arts from Nigeria, May 9- 3 September 2007, when the Benin delegation said it would be satisfied if each of the Western museums present at the symposium would return one Benin artefact, the then director of the Ethnology Museum, Vienna, now World Museum, Vienna, quickly answered that this was impossible. We challenged the assertions of the director. At least two persons in the present BDG were there who could testify. Indeed, one of them was the curator of the excellent exhibition and edited the magnificent exhibition catalogue. (17)

The hypothesis of the two Western museums declaring their willingness to send 100 Benin pieces each to Nigeria, is idle speculation unless Shyllon as a member of the group has information that is not available to us. Should British Museum and Ethnology Museum seriously make such a declaration, we know that between the declaration and the date of implementation, there would be a period long enough to organize the reception of those pieces in Lagos, Abuja and Benin City. We should not forget that the Benin pieces were looted from the palace of Oba Ovonramwen in 1897. Is the present palace of the Oba not big enough to receive the pieces? We see in this angst about where to put 200 pieces a certain danger of internalization, at least partially, of the Western allegations about the incapacity of Nigerians and Africans to organize properly their affairs or to protect their cultural artefacts. And this comes from those who looted Benin artefacts with military force in 1897. If Shyllon believes or expects that the British Museum and the Ethnology Museum, Berlin, are in the mood to return such large numbers of Benin artefacts to Nigeria, could he kindly ask them to increase the number to 200 pieces each? We would help to find a place for the returned Benin treasures. We should remember though that however Nigeria organizes its museums and other places for the looted artefacts, we would never be able to guarantee their security if superior force be used to loot them. And this is not idle speculation.

But if Nigerian authorities are not ready to receive 200 pieces, the question arises as to what theyhave been doing in the last sixty years during which the restitution of those treasures has been a concern. Since Independence in 1960, every Nigerian Parliament or government has asked for the restitution of Nigeria’s looted artefacts. What have the responsible authorities been doing, making no preparations for those artefacts they are supposed to bring back?

Shyllon could usefully ask such a question rather than throw the question at a critic who is not responsible for preserving and protecting Nigerian artefacts. This is a wrong addressee.

What Shyllon calls my strident articles seem to have impressed some people including the authors of the Sarr-Savoy report who state at page 23 of their report:

‘On the informational website modernghana, a former functionary of the United Nations and a miltant citizen, Kwame Opoku published over 150 articles beginning in 2008 carefully and beautifully documenting a favourable case for the restitution of items of African heritage to Africa’.

Opoku is mentioned at least 9 times in the report. In the meanwhile, my articles have reached 236 at modernghana. Some of my articles will be found at museumsecurity network, pambazuka, africavenir, elginism. Opinions on my articles can also be found in Annex V below listing some writers who have found them useful. (18) One commentator, Paul Barford declared:

‘The Benin campaign of course owes much to the tireless activity and forceful arguments of one academic Kwame Opoku. The relative prominence of African art issues stem from colonial history and the size of the continent. (19)

A Legal Adviser of the National Commission on Museums and Monuments has written in his book Legal and Other Issues in Repatriating Nigeria’s Looted Artefacts (2009)

‘The cerebral pride of Africa, former lecturer in law at the University of Lagos, contemporary of some of our best minds and fervent lover of Nigeria and her heritage, Professor Kwame Opoku in various writings has revealed the locations of these items, he dreams of the day these things will be returned to their rightful owner. By his investigations, almost every European and American museum has some Benin objects. He listed some of the places where Benin bronzes are found and their numbers.’ (20)

Opoku is mentioned at least seven times in the book by Adebiyi who also attends the meetings of the BDG.

We note also that some of Shyllon’s PhD candidates mentioned my strident articles in their thesis and still obtained their doctorates. One of them wrote,’’ There exist researches on the protection of cultural property and also the return and restitution of cultural property which provide important insights into the development of this thesis’. (21).

f). An ‘all or nothing’ approach to restitution has proven to be a road that leads nowhere.

We do not know where Shyllon got this idea that I follow what he calls all or nothing approach. He is falling into the same line as Philippe Montebello and others adopted, alleging that we want the West to return all African artefacts. (21) We have consistently argued that a substantial proportion of looted African artefacts would have to be returned from the West and that what is to remain would have to be settled by the African and the Western parties. We have had to explain that ‘some’ does not mean’ all’. We have argued that the Germans must share with Nigeria the 508-580 Benin artefacts that they are keeping in the Ethnology Museum. Is this an all or nothing approach? Does Shyllon read my articles that he is ready and willing to condemn?

g). Be that as it may, the dissembling on the issue of restitution in the Leiden Statement is unfortunate. It is a backward step that is quite unnecessary. The Dialogue Group started unambiguously with the twin objectives of restitution and lease. They are two sides of the same coin, and it is quite unhelpful to abandon restitution in the Leiden Statement.

Shyllon thus states that the BDG was wrong in removing restitution from its agenda but argues that Still, the criticism of the Dialogue Group by Kwame Opoku leaves much to be desired.

What does Shyllon really mean? If the group was wrong in doing what they did, then it must be right to criticise them as he has done. But Opoku too should not be allowed to criticise them? What disqualifies Opoku from saying what Shyllon is allowed to say? Freedom of speech for one and ban on speaking for the other? A strange view from a law professor. Indeed, one could make a serious argument by saying that Kwame Opoku who is an independent critic may say what he likes but Shyllon, being a member or participant in the BDG surely should not publicly attack the group in writing

g) Shyllon ends his article as follows: It is suggested that restitution as a matter of interest to the Group should be reinstated when it convenes in Benin City in 2019. Restitution should at least remain as a vision of the Group, if not, for now, part of its mission.

If Shyllon feels that restitution should remain part of the agenda of the Benin Dialogue Group, what then is his real ground for launching an attack on Kwame Opoku, for criticizing the group’s removal of restitution from its agenda? Is he writing on behalf of some persons who think an African should not feel free to criticize them when they are wrong? An independent-minded African critic irritates those with racist ideas. Shyllon’s comments will now make it difficult for the group to re-insert restitution on their agenda if they do not want to lose all credibility. Without Shyllon’s comments and the consequential response, the group could have declared that their initial removal of restitution from their agenda for that session had been misunderstood by critics and re-insert the topic.

It is my turn to say that Shyllon should not have written the article as he did. He was there when the decision was taken to remove restitution from its agenda. He could have told them during the discussions that it was wrong so to decide. Not having done so, after the meeting, he could have informed the members about his opinion. Now he has publicly shown they were wrong and offered even more grounds than Opoku did to show why they were wrong.

If the Benin Dialogue Group does not want to discuss the restitution of Benin artefacts, who then will do that? Who will discuss restitution of Nok, Igbo Ukwu, Ife, Tsoede, Owo, Esie, Calabar and the others looted Nigerian artefacts in Western museums? And how long will they need to discuss Nigerian artefacts before they come to Ethiopian, Cameroonian, Ghanaian and other African artefacts looted in the colonial period?

We take note of the Shyllon’s statement that Oba Ewuare II ‘delegated his uncle, Prince Gregory Akenzua, `a Professor of paediatrics to represent him’ and that ‘the Kings of Benin clearly know how to pursue claims for the return of their antiquities’.

Let us make no mistake. The decision to remove restitution of Benin artefacts from the agenda of the BDG is a great victory for the West and its museums, sweeping aside with a stroke decades of debates for the restitution of the Benin artefacts. If this succeeds, no other African peoples can ever hope for restitution of their looted artefacts. African scholars must be aware of these implications and decide which side they support. They cannot be neutral. They cannot be for both sides in this debate.

I must put on record my great disappointment at reading Shyllon’s attacks whether he did this on his own accord or on behalf of others who do not feel like doing so openly, does not matter. If they do not want criticism of their group, they should do the right thing. Furthermore, Shyllon cannot play party and judge in his own case. He has taken part in the decisions of the Benin Dialogue Group from the beginning to date. He should convey his views to them but not try to attack others and present himself as an impartial judge, praising others and critizising others. He has offered strong grounds for criticising the decision of the BDG to remove restitution from its agenda.

When I started writing on these issues some years ago, an African friend, at the highest levels of legal and judicial services of international organizations, drew my attention to the writings of a Nigerian scholar and ever since then I have read with interest and profit, all contributions by Folarin Shyllon that are easily available. I have quoted him in several articles although the first time he has referred to my contributions has been to criticise me. This latest article is one I would like to forget and ignore among his otherwise excellent contributions.

We may never know the truth about these unprecedented attacks, but it is disheartening that one of Nigeria’s leading authorities on these questions should write such a piece. He was definitely ill-advised, ill-inspired and his article was ill-conceived.

‘The authors of the Sarr and Savoy report fear that talking about circulation is mainly a way of not talking about the restitution issue…

Yes, and it's true. There is ownership, which must be clear. The issue of conservation capacities should be separated from the legitimate right of ownership. From this point of view, the objects should be considered as on deposit, on loan for a more or less long period, in the museums of the former colonial powers. The rationale of proposing long-term deposits in countries of origin as a solution must be reversed! This means that countries of origin, regaining ownership, will have rights to the images, which are important for different uses, and a say in the circulation of works of which they have regained ownership. Alain Godonou (22)

Kwame Opoku.

Notes

1.On the so-called Benin Plan of Action, http://africanartswithtaj.blogspot.co.at/2013/02/benin-plan-of-action-plotting.html

2. Folarin Shyllon, BENIN DIALOGUE GROUP: BENIN ROYAL MUSEUM-THREE STEPS FORWARD, SIX STEPS BACK

Art, Antiquity and Law, Vol. XXIII, Issue 4, 341-347, Dec.2018.

3. Nigeria To Borrow Looted Nigerian Artefacts From Successorhttps://www.modernghana.com/.../nigeria-to-borrow-looted-nigerian-artefacts-from-s..

Opinion | We Will Show You Looted Benin Bronzes But Will Not Give ...

https://www.modernghana.com/.../we-will-show-you-looted-benin-bronzes-but-will-n...

4. See Annex II

5. Peju Layiwola, Benin 1897.com Art and the Restitution Question,

6. Annex III Document 3 from Sarr-Savoy Report

7. Opinion | Loan Of Looted Ethiopian Treasures To Ethiopia: Must ---https://www.modernghana.com/.../loan-of-looted-ethiopian-treasures-to-ethiopia-must...


8. Anger mounts as UK museum offers to return looted Ethiopian ...

https://ecadforum.com/.../anger-mounts-as-uk-museum-offers-to-return-looted-ethiopia.

9 See Annex IV

10. Preface to Benin 1897. Com. Art and the Restitution Question by Peju Layiwola, 2010, Wy Art Editions, Ibadan.

11. Ibid. p.84, Shyllon,’Negotiations for the Return of Nok Sculptures from France to Nigeria: An Unrighteous Conclusion’.

12. Kwame Opoku - BENIN PLAN OF ACTION: WILL THIS MISERABLE ...

https://www.toncremers.nl/kwame-opoku-benin-plan-of-action-will-this-miserable-do...

African Arts with Taj: Proposed loaning of looted-Benin bronzes to ...


https://africanartswithtaj.blogspot.com/2018/.../proposed-loaning-of-looted-benin.htm...


13. Peju Layiwola, Walker and the Restitution of Two Benin Bronzes, By Peju Layiwola ...

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/.../165632-walker-and-the-restitution-of-two-benin...

Kwame Opoku - A BRITON RETURNS TWO LOOTED BENIN ...

https://www.toncremers.nl/kwame-opoku-a-briton-returns-two-looted-benin-artefacts/

Prince Egun Agharesa Akenzua met Mark walker to receive the Benin bronzes

Tajudeen Sowole wrote on his web site, African Arts with Taj as follows:

https://africanartswithtaj.blogspot.com/2014/06/

‘'Prof Folarin Shyllon, Vice Chairman, UNESCO sub-Committee on Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property argued that the NCMM should have handled it with better caution. He noted that Walker did not put into consideration the fact that Benin as at the time of 1897 is different now, and under a nation state of Nigeria.

Shyllon cited an example of foreign countries where similar return of arterfacts happened from private hands and recalled that the artefacts being returned were handed over to the government. “For example, when some artefacts were returned to Ethiopia from a Scottish, the government received the works in Addis Ababa.”

Folarin however stated that given the situation created by Walker’s lack of understanding of the complexity involved and disrespect for ethics of international relation, “the NCMM should have been more careful in managing the situation.”

14. K. Opoku Egyptian Season Of Artefacts Returns: Hopeful Sign ... - Modern Ghana

https://www.modernghana.com/.../egyptian-season-of-artefacts-returns-hopeful-sign-t..

15. Shyllon, ‘Negotiations for the Return of Nok Sculptures from France to Nigeria: An

Unrighteous Conclusion’ in Peju Layiwola (ed), op. cit. pp. 81 -89.

16. The Parthenon Sculptures: The position of the Trustees of the British Museum


The Acropolis Museum allows the Parthenon sculptures that are in Athens (approximately half of what survives from the ancient world) to be appreciated against the backdrop of Athenian history. The Parthenon sculptures in London are an important representation of ancient Athenian civilisation in the context of world history. Each year millions of visitors, free of charge, admire the artistry of the sculptures and gain insight into how ancient Greece influenced- and was influenced by- the other civilisations that it encountered. The Trustees firmly believe that there is a positive advantage and public benefit in having the Sculptures divided between two great museums, each telling a complementary but different story.

British Museum - Parthenon sculptures: position of the British Museum ...

https://www.britishmuseum.org/...us/.../parthenon_sculptures/trustees_statement.aspx

17 More on the Benin bronzes issue - Elginism

www.elginism.com/similar-cases/more-on-the-benin-bronzes-issue/.../746/

18. See Annex III

19. http://culturalpropertyrepat.blogspot.com/2013/

20. Legal and Other Issues in Repatriating Nigeria’s Looted Artefacts, 2009, p.32.

21.https://www.academia.edu/35225943/RETURN_AND_RESTITUTION_OF_CULTURAL_PROPERTY_IN_AFRICAN_STATES_UNDER_THE_1970_UNESCO_AND_1995_UNIDROIT_CONVENTIONS

Afolasade A Adewumi

Foot-note.

67 . Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation. Retrieved 6th July, 2014 fromhttp://icom.museum/programmes/art-and -cultural-heritage-mediation/; Coggins, C.C. 1998. A Proposal for Museum Acquisition Policies in the Future, International Journal of Cultural Property. Vol. 7, No. 2: 434 -437; Mayour, F. Problems and Scope, Illicit Traffic in Cultural Property, Appeal launched in 1994 by Director General of UNESCO; Fighting Illicit Traffic, Retrieved 6th July, 2014 from http://icom.museum/programmes/fighting-illicit-traffic; Opoku K, Blood Antiquities in Respectable Havens: Looted Benin Artefacts Donated to American Museum. Retrieved 6th July, 2014 from http://www.modernghana.com; Opoku, K. Nigeria Reacts to Donation of Looted Benin Artefacts to Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 17 July 2012; Rollet-Andriane, L. Precedents in Return and restitution of cultural property. Museum. Vol XXXI, No.14 – 7; UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects: Explanatory Report. Prepared by the UNIDROIT Secretariat, Uniform Law Review,2001-3: 476 – 564.68, A. loc.cit

69 Prunty, A.P. 1984.Toward Establishing an International Tribunal for the Settlement of Cultural Property Disputes: How to Keep Greece from Losing its Marbles. The Georgetown Law Journal. Vol. 72: 1155 - 1182; 70 Philippaki, B. 1979. Greece, Return and Restitution of Cultural Property, Museum Vol. XXXI, No.1:15 –

17 71 Bakula, C. Combating Trafficking in Cultural Property, The 1970 Convention: Evaluation and Prospects. Background Paper, second edition for participants in the Second Meeting of States Parties to the 1970 Convention Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, 20-21 June 2012; 72 Cordero, J.S. 2003. The Protection of Cultural Heritage: A Mexican Perspective.

Uniform Law Review. NS-Vol. VIII: 565 573

ANNEX I

EXTRACTS FROM FOLARIN SHYLLON, BENIN GROUP DIALOGUE-BENIN ROYAL MUSEUM-THREE STEPS FORWARD, SIX STEPS BACK- Art, Antiquity and Law, Vol. XXIII, Issue 4, 341-347, Dec.2018.

A Misstep

This is not the place to discuss the initiative of President Macron in Ouagadougou, nor the Sarr-Savoy report. Both have however been referred to because the Macron initiative took place before the Benin Dialogue Group meeting in Leiden as well as the commissioning of Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy to look into restitution or loan of African cultural objects to Africa. That being so, the prevailing mood, at least on one side of the debate, should have been taken into account, and the wholesale rejection of restitution as a matter of interest to the group should not have been so carelessly jettisoned. The point is being made because it gives fodder to some critics of the Benin Dialogue Group. In a reference to the Cambridge Statement, Kwame Opoku wrote: “We have the so-called Dialogue Group on Benin proposing a strange scheme whereby some of the looted Benin artefacts would be displayed in Benin City, but ownership of the artefacts would be with Western museums. And they find some Africans to approve of such a ridiculous and insulting proposal (emphasis added).”12 It is possible that Dr Opoku is unfamiliar with the resolution of the South KoreaFrench impasse with regard to the Oe-KyuJangGak royal archives.13. In 1866, the French navy plundered the Oe-KyuJangGak royal archives and the manuscripts/ books in 297 volumes ended up at the Bibliothèque Nationale. In 1991, the Koreans began asking for their return.14 It was not until 2010 that President Nicholas Sarkozy decided to return them to South Korea. As usual the librarians and curators were opposed to the idea. They raised the red flag of inalienability of cultural property in French museums and archives.15 A French court ruled that the royal manuscripts belong to the National Library of France. Eventually, a creative solution was found. The manuscripts would go back to South Korea on a lease basis and the lease contract would be renewed every five years. In the words of the French President: “We have agreed [on a plan] in which the lease of the documents will be rolled over every five years.” Consequently, although to this day the manuscripts remain in French ownership, physically they are in South Korea where they are destined to stay forever. There is therefore already a precedent for what has been proposed. It is not “a strange scheme”, as Opoku suggested. And it is ill-advised for him to dub it “ridiculous and insulting”.

Conclusion

From the start the Benin Royal Court has been an active member of the Dialogue Group. During his reign Omo N’Oba Erediauwa sent a representative to the meetings. Now that his son Omo N’Oba Ewuare II is on the throne, he too has been sending a representative to the Group meetings. At the Cambridge meeting, the first since Ewuare II ascended the throne, he delegated his uncle Prince Gregory Akenzua, a Professor of paediatrics to represent him.

12. Kwame Opoku, ‘Macron Promises to Return African Artefacts in French Museums: A New Era in African- European Relationship or a Mirage?’ Modern Ghana, 10 Dec. 2017, 13. Elginism, ‘France to Return S. Korean Royal Documents’ 12 Nov. 2010, ; Elginism, ‘France Will Return Korean Kings’ Books’ 6 Dec. 2010, ; Elginism, ‘French Court Rules on Disputed Korean Manuscripts’ 19 Jan. 2010, ; Elginism, Kelly Olsen, 30 Jan. 2012 ‘Korean Royal Books Looted by French in the 19th Century Get Colourful Welcome’, . 14 See Jongsok Kim ‘The Oe-Kyujanggak Archives’ (2002) VII Art Antiquity and Law 7. 15 Article L. 451-5 Heritage Code (Code du Patrimoine).

Prince Akenzua also represented the Oba at the Leiden meeting. Whilst both sovereigns continue to argue for the return of their ancestors’ antiquities, they felt it imperative for them to send delegates to the meetings knowing full well the limitations of the meetings. Furthermore, when Prince Charles visited Nigeria 6th-8th November 2018, it was reported by Nigerian newspapers that the Oba (King) of Benin requested the Prince of Wales to support the agitation for the return of some of the Benin bronzes to Nigeria.16 What is clear from this, despite what certain critics may say, is that the Kings of Benin clearly know how to pursue claims for the return of their antiquities. Is it by refusing to take part in the activities of the Dialogue Group that the antiquities will return? The author Opoku, referred to above, has over the years published many strident articles calling for the return of African artefacts. Yet no Benin bronze or other looted or stolen African artefact has over this period returned to Africa. Therefore, the reproach to ‘some Africans’ engaging in a dialogue with Western museums is misguided. Is half a loaf not better than none at all? An ‘all or nothing’ approach to restitution has proven to be a road that leads nowhere. Be that as it may, the dissembling on the issue of restitution in the Leiden Statement is unfortunate. It is a backward step that is quite unnecessary. The Dialogue Group started unambiguously with the twin objectives of restitution and lease. They are two sides of the same coin, and it is quite unhelpful to abandon restitution in the Leiden Statement. Still, the criticism of the Dialogue Group by Kwame Opoku leaves much to be desired. If the British Museum and the Ethnology Museum, Berlin were today to declare that they would release 100 pieces each of the Benin antiquities in their possession, is there a museum in Lagos, Abuja or Benin City that can adequately house them and ensure their safety and proper handling? The plan of action agreed to in Cambridge appears, in the meantime, to be a credible way to accept the yearnings of interested and concerned Nigerians in the matter. 16 Adelani Adepegba, ‘Return Our Artifacts, Oba of Benin Tells Prince of Wales’ The Punch, 6 Nov.

ANNEX II

EXTRACTS FROM ELGINISM

Elginism

n. 1801. An act of cultural vandalism

December 8, 2010

French Bibliothèque Nationale staff speak out against return of Korean manuscripts

Posted at 11:17 pm in Similar cases

Following the recent announcement by France’s president that the Bibliothèque Nationale would return numerous looted manuscripts to Korea has led to a backlash by librarians from the BNF. This issue (where the president makes decision without first discussing it with all stakeholders, followed by a subsequent backlash) is very similar to what happened with the Palermo fragment of the Parthenon Frieze in 2006, whereby the Italian president stated that the fragment would be returned, but had not discussed this with the museum in Sicily which held it, leading to a very lengthy delay before the fragment finally arrived in Athens.

The BNF staff have responded by creating a petition against the return of the manuscripts.

REPATRIATION OF LOOTED DOCUMENTS BACK TO KOREA. Dr. Kwame Opoku said,

12.11.10 at 6:51 pm

PROTEST BY OFFICIALS AT THE FRENCH BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONAL

I assume the officials at the French Bibliothèque National are conscious of what they are doing and are aware of the implications of their stand of the return of the looted manuscripts back to Korea.

One is surprised at the very feeble arguments presented for their opposition to the decision by Sarkozy to return the manuscript to Korea:

“It should not be forgotten that copies of most of these manuscripts exist in Korea”

That copies of the manuscript exist in Korea is no argument against the return of the original to the country of origin. The French could also make copies before the originals are returned to Korea. Or are copies only good for Korea, the land that produced the originals but not for France, the land that took them away by military force?

That “the decision was taken against the advice of the Bibliothèque and of the Ministry of Culture” raises issues of competence and authority that can be settled by French lawyers and the courts. This contention does not affect at all the juridical situation regarding the ownership of the manuscripts as far as Korea is concerned.

The argument that the decision

“is sure to strengthen the increasingly sustained claims for the return of cultural property that various countries are making to the archives, museums and libraries in France, Europe, and beyond.”

This may be so but Korea and other States that are claiming the return of artefacts looted from their countries do not need such decision to bolster up their claims. These demands have been made over decades are no novel issues. This is an old argument that if you give in here others will also come and claim their stolen objects. Does the Bibliothèque consists only of looted objects or objects of dubious acquisition?

“- the decision demonstrates the growing and worrying subordination of the law and heritage policy to politic economic and geostrategic considerations, at the risk of threatening the principle of inalienability in respect of public collections.

With all due respect to the protesters, the French should be the last to make such an argument for nowhere else are politics, economics, and geostrategic so intertwined with such considerations as in France. Think of the establishment of the Musee du quai Branly, the Bibliothèque National François Mitterrand and all the various cultural institutions that have been built on political considerations. The very names of these institutions show the political motivations at work.

“The risk of threatening the principle of inalienability in respect of public collections.”

This is no doubt a useful and necessary principle in preserving national cultural property but where it is clearly established that the objects have been stolen or looted, surely that principle should not apply. In any case, there is a procedure under French law for seeking a modification by application to the Minister of culture as has been done recently in the case of certain Egyptian artefacts and also in the case of human remains that were returned to South Africa and also the Maori heads that were returned to the Maoris, in New Zealand...

The protesters should be reminded that in several United Nations and UNESCO resolutions and Conferences, holding countries have been urged to return cultural objects to their country of origin.

ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums – 2001 Edition

Provides that:

6.2 Return of Cultural Property

Museums should be prepared to initiate dialogues for the return of cultural property to a country or people of origin. This should be undertaken in an impartial manner, based on scientific, professional and humanitarian principles as well as applicable local, national and international legislation, in preference to action at a governmental or political level.

6.3 Restitution of Cultural Property

When a country or people of origin seeks the restitution of an object or specimen that can be demonstrated to have been exported or otherwise transferred in violation of the principles of international and national conventions, and shown to be part of that country’s or people’s cultural or natural heritage, the museum concerned should, if legally free to do so, take prompt and responsible steps to co-operate in its return.

The Bibliotheque should have followed these principles in handling the Korean manuscripts.

We have always maintained the view that if museums and libraries would not seek to arrive at acceptable compromises with countries of origin of artefacts, the politicians will eventually step in and act in a way that may not please the specialists but will solve the issue. This is what has happened. Are the French museums and libraries going to learn from the case of the Korean manuscripts and act before politicians intervene in the other pending claims from the African, Asian and American States?

One has the impression that the protesters have forgotten the natural and logical interest of the Koreans in their manuscripts. It may also be questioned on what moral basis the French officials are protesting in a matter in which return is the honourable solution. The protest does not show any concern for the Koreans even though the protesters write about the Bibliothèque “demonstrating its high regard for the heritage of all civilizations across the world and its desire to make this heritage available to everyone. A high regard for all civilizations should move all to support the claims of the Koreans to recover their manuscripts taken away by brutal military force.

A Curator From Africa Who Challenged All Conventions Of The Art Establishment

Dr. Leonhard Emmerling, director, programmes, South Asia, Goethe-Institute, addressing the crowd on April 3, 2019, with Enwezor’s photo in the background.

BY BHUMIKA POPLI

SUNDAY GUARDIAN

Nigerian curator Okwui Enwezor, who passed away on 15 March at age 55, was one of the most influential figures in the international art circuit and yet he dedicated his life to supporting artists from marginalised cultures, writes Bhumika Popli.

Nigerian curator Okwui Enwezor, who died on 15 March 2019, at age 55, will always be remembered for the radical language he provided to the arts. The exhibitions he curated and the critical essays he wrote will for years to come serve as a source of inspiration for those looking to make their way in the creative arts.

In 1996, he curated In/Sight: African Photographers, 1940 to the Present, an exhibition on African photography hosted by the Guggenheim Museum in New York. The show was a conscious attempt on the part of the curator to divert attention from the mainstream to the marginalised expressions of African culture.

This show included 30 photographers and presented to the world many visions of Africa, with photos themed on the continent’s political, architectural and social fabrics.

At just 38, Enwezor became the first non-European person to become the artistic director of Documenta11 (1998-2002), a well-regarded international exhibition that takes place every five years in Kassel, Germany. This 100-day-long art show included exhibits about marginal and postcolonial lives. His mission statement, as Enwezor had written, was to facilitate “the full emergence of the margin at the centre”.

When he curated the 56th Venice Biennale in 2015, he became the first director from the African region to be on the board of the Biennale. The theme of this prestigious event was “All the World’s Futures” and it featured artworks by 135 artists from 53 countries. Alexander Forbes in his review of the Biennale in Artsy, an online magazine, called it an “unpleasant experience”, but unpleasant in a good way.

Forbes wrote, “Enwezor uses a vast series of case studies to highlight the negative conditions and overwhelming precarity created by our late-capitalist society rather than setting up a series grande and prescriptive conceptual projects.”

Enwezor also cofounded Nka: Journal of Contemporary African Art. The word “Nka” comes from an ethnic Nigerian language, Igbo. It means, as he mentioned in an interview, art, and also refers to phrases like “to create, “to make”.

Enwezor was born in Nigeria and lived in New York and Munich. He studied political science in the US and was also keenly interested in poetry. He worked as an educator, served as the director of Haus der Kunst, Munich, and was appointed as the adjunct curator of International Centre of Photography in New York, along with being the visiting professor of art history at many universities and colleges.

Enwezor was also regarded with great reverence in the Indian art community. On 3 April, there was a remembrance meet in his honour in Delhi.

The event was attended by artists Vivan Sundaram and Amar Kanwar among others.

Gayatri Sinha, an art curator, was also present here. She said that Enwezor saw the Nigerian African identity as a productive site and demanded its full inclusion into the global system of arts.

Vivan Sundaram, who had a long association with Enwezor, said that the curator raised tough questions about politics throughout his career. “Enwezor tried to rescue justice and history from instrumental abuse,” Sundaram said. He then quoted from a letter Enwezor once wrote to him, “…the fact that you have sustained a critical, ethical and material enquiry in your art over many decades in the current crisis of the global sphere…the exhibition becomes more dynamic.”

Amar Kanwar, a multimedia artist from Delhi, worked with Enwezor on the Documenta11. At the event, Kanwar said that the curator always pushed him to believe in his work.

Art critic Geeta Kapur also gave Enwezor a heartwarming tribute, talking about the “deep grief” Enwezor’s death had caused her. “Okwui occupied all the worlds that art aspires to,” she said, referring to the contributions the late curator made to the art sphere.

Enwezor was called a “trailblazer”, “intellectual visionary”, “reformist”, and many more things. Rajeev Lochan, former director of the National Gallery of Modern Art, Delhi, also knew Enwezor. Lochan got curious about the meaning of Enwezor’s name did some research on it. He said, “It meant practicality, ambition, success, and all such virtues,”— qualities so intrinsic to Enwezor’s character.