
The sheer scale of the challenges and difficulties Africans face in restitution is worth some examination.
Climbing Mountains
“The long and difficult journeys of African restitution”
Published Feb 4th, 2025
One night in 1985, in the quiet hours before the sun rose on the horizon, thieves snuck into Kalume Mwakiru Katana’s homestead in Mombasa, Kenya. They did not steal livestock or farming tools. Neither did they break into his house to steal valuables. They stole something priceless – two funerary statues (vigango) he erected for his brothers who had recently passed away. In the morning, he wept loudly when he discovered the crime. His younger brother, recounting the night of the theft[1], said, “I remember when we woke up, and the vigango were gone. My brother was disheartened. He had lost his only remaining connection with his dearly departed brothers.”[2] Vigango are funerary posts that maintain the connection between the living and the dead among the Giriama and Kauma sub-communities of the larger Mijikenda community. They are the material embodiment of the spirits of dead members of Gohu, a male-only secret society of elders, meaning ‘Society of the Blessed’.[3]
However, they were seen as collectables in parts of Europe and America, and a market for these stolen funerary posts grew internationally. For Katana, the possibility that they had already been sent off across the seas, tens of thousands of kilometres away, made recovering them seem impossible. The theft of Katana’s vigango was part of a long history of the removal of sacred and profane African belongings and even human ancestors. While Katana’s loss was in 1985, many others stretch far further back and are part of criminal, missionary, colonial and other forms of extraction of African heritage – some 90-95% of African material heritage is currently held outside the continent. Of this monumental number, less than 1,000 have been returned. [4]
As part of the growing efforts to address some of this loss, Open Restitution Africa (ORA) has begun a database of restitution processes, collating in-depth case studies from Botswana, Cameroon, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe so far. By studying completed and pending returns of African belongings and ancestors, ORA looks to garner insights into how restitution is currently happening and the emerging strategies and practices that can be shared with others embarking on similar journeys. Suppose something or someone having been taken is the initiation of a restitution process. In that case, the next steps of tracking, locating, identifying belongings and ancestors, and then negotiating their return across different institutions, states, and legal systems is incredibly complex. There is no established map for how to navigate these processes, making restitution an immense mountain to climb.

The sheer scale of the challenges and difficulties Africans face is worth some examination. But the very first step – locating belongings and ancestors that have been taken – is perhaps one of the most difficult in a restitution process. Although processes in restitution journeys differ, timelines vary, and the people involved are distinct, some patterns emerge across cases. From the first 16 case studies collected, we are beginning to learn some key lessons.
The first is that locating belongings and ancestors is really difficult! In only 25% (or just over 2 in 10) of cases did Africans have a general idea of where their belongings were. 75% [5] had little to no knowledge as to the actual location of their belongings and ancestors. In most cases (or 7 cases of every 10), [6] the rough origin of the people who took the belongings is known, but these belongings may be in any number of private or public collections in that country. Other times, they are sold to other institutions and individuals in different countries and even continents. And in the case of belongings that have entered into public collections, 68% (or almost 7 out of every 10)[7] have been kept in storerooms for most of the many decades that they have been missing, limiting their visibility.
88% have little to no knowledge as to the actual location of their belongings and ancestors
When the Tangue was stolen[8] in 1884, it took 97 years before a Bele-Bele community member located it in a German museum. The Tangue is the princely bow of the Bele-Bele King’s ship. It is a sacred symbol with carvings that identify and affirm the king’s authority over the water tribes of the Douala region in Cameroon. It was stolen[9] when Germans pillaged[10] King Kum’a Mbappe’s palace in 1884 because he resisted German colonial rule.[11]
The only information hinting at the Tangue’s location in Munich lay in the archival diary of a colonial administrator. He described the ransacking[12] of the King’s palace in detail, stating that it was the main booty amongst other belongings.[13] In 1981, Prince Kum’a Ndumbe III, a descendant of King Mbappé travelled to Germany on an unrelated academic trip.[14] While on a casual visit at the Museum Fünf Kontinente, he saw the Tangue on display. Immediately recognising it as the sacred belonging pillaged[15] from his community in 1884, he contacted the museum’s staff to inform them. A request was also made that the museum return it to the Bele-Bele. The museum acknowledged that the Tangue was the same one stolen[16] in 1884. But, they considered his demand informal because it was not directed through their officially recognised channels. On that basis, they denied his demand for Tangue’s return.
Prince Ndumbe III disclosed to relevant parties back in Cameroon that the exact location of the Tangue was at the Museum Fünf Kontinente. This locating of the Tangue 97 years after it was looted[17] was a pivotal moment in its restitution journey because it gave them a clearer direction. In October 2023, the government of Cameroon, through the Ministry of Arts and Culture, assembled an Interministerial Commission that was charged with overseeing the state-to-state aspects of existing Cameroonian restitution demands with European – and particularly German – museums[18]. The Tangue case also demonstrates an emerging tactic in the mountain climb – in a number of other cases[19], Africans have first encountered their taken belongings and ancestors by ‘happenstance’. Usually, they are in Europe or the United States for education and work. Yet, it is emerging from the data that community members[20] often use these opportunities to undertake ‘side-quests’, seeking their heritage in museums around the world.
In 1893, King Gaob Hendrik Witbooi, leader of the Khowese Nama of the Great Namaqualand, resisted signing a treaty with the Germans. In retaliation, on 12th April 1893 they attacked his settlement, ransacked it, killed men, women and children and burned it to the ground.[21] The King’s Bible and whip were part of the ransacked loot[22]. Documentation from the Linden Museum in 1902 indicated that King Witbooi’s belongings were donated to their African collection, but this was not publicly accessible information and certainly not accessible to his descendants in Namibia. In an interview with his great-great granddaughter in 2023, where she shared how they located his Bible and Whip, she said, “All we knew was that the Bible and Whip were lost in the war with the Germans.”[23]
When King Witbooi’s belongings were donated to the Linden Museum, they were put in storage, probably with no plans of ever displaying them. But something changed in 2001 – a collaboration called the Archives of Anti-Colonial Resistance and Liberation Struggle Programme (AACRLS) was formed between Germany and Namibia. It sought to identify and publicise Namibian cultural heritage in German institutions that was inaccessible.[24] So, in 2007, when the Linden Museum curated an exhibition of Namibian heritage from their Africa collection, the AACRLS saw the exhibition catalogue where Hendrik Witbooi’s whip was included[25]. The Bible was mentioned but not displayed in the exhibition. This was how the AACRLS learned the exact location of the Bible and Whip, slightly over a century after they were first taken.
A member of the AACRLS approached the Linden Museum’s director to enquire about returning the Bible and Whip to Namibia. This set the stage for the process of its return.
It took another 10 years for Witbooi’s family to be incorporated into plans to bring the Bible and Whip back to Namibia.[26] “This display made public that the Linden Museum had these artefacts. We were very shocked and surprised to even hear about the artefacts. Because the thing is, people don’t expect to have things sent back to them (Elizabeth Kock, Hendrik Witbooi’s great-great granddaughter).”[27] Hendrik Witbooi’s Bible and Whip is not the only belonging in our database with such a moment, where a new exhibition or publication of long held collections brings to light the actual location[28] of belongings and ancestors for their communities of origin.
Just the very first step in a restitution process can take more than 100 years
For other restitution cases, locating is difficult because belongings and ancestors change hands. The people who robbed or looted human ancestors or belongings often did not keep them, selling or donating them to private and public collections[29]. Belongings and ancestors were also[30] sold to dealers, who either kept them or sold them to other collectors. For example, when Kalume Mwakiru Katana’s vigango were stolen from his home in 1985, it took fourteen years of tracing the different hands that exchanged them before they were located.[31]
While 14 years is still a significantly long time to be separated from the representation of the spirits of family members, most cases take many decades, and even more[32] The graph below shows the substantial amount of time it takes just to locate belongings and ancestors that have been taken. Just the very first step in a restitution process can take more than 100 years.
By comparing relative time for restitution processes – and the different steps that need to be taken in a restitution case – we can identify where the significant blockages are, but also what enables breakthroughs to help processes flow more swiftly. The data points to a very clear obstacle in the broadly difficult journey of restitution – identifying the exact location, and current holder, of African heritage that has been taken. This is evidently a primary issue in the fair and ethical processes of restitution of African heritage.
To enable Africans, and empower agents in restitution processes, it is absolutely necessary to make collections information accessible. There are a number of potential ways this can be done, and various strategies for information dissemination and gathering. There are also important ethical questions in how information is shared that need to be considered. Still, the evident reality is that a lack of transparency and openness about information is a direct obstruction of a process towards justice.
By collecting, organising and analysing data on restitution from the perspective of African experiences, we can begin to map out routes and develop strategies for better practice and outcomes in African heritage restitution. For Africans, restitution remains a massive mountain to climb, but we are navigating ways to make it more direct, more coordinated, more ethical, and maybe a little gentler.
This is the first in an ongoing series of stories emerging from the research of activists, academics, curators and community members across Africa, developing a database of restitution processes. Please join our newsletter and follow us on our socials to get notified when a new story comes out.
1 Tayari Kalume, J. (2024). The Restitution of Katana’s Vigango. Open Restition Africa [Interview].
2 Ibid.
3 Udvardy, M. (1990a). Gender and the Culture of Fertility among the Giriama of Kenya. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Uppsala University, Sweden. Uppsala University. 4 Sarr, F., & Savoy, B. (2018). 3 The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational Ethics. 5 Open Restitution Africa. (2025). Restitution Case Studies (Version 1) [Qualitative]. [Dataset].
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
* Meyomesse, E. (2017). Kum’a Mbappé Bonabéri 1884 Liberté ! EdkBooks.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ndumbe III, K. (2023). Restituez à l’Afrique ses objets de culte et d’art!: Reconstituons notre mémoire collective africaine! Douala IVè/Cameroun: Éditions AfricAvenir.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Open Restitution Africa. (2025). Restitution Case Studies (Version 1) [Qualitative]. [Dataset].
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Kößler, R. (2019). The Bible and the Whip – Entanglements surrounding the restitution of looted heirlooms. ABI Working Paper, 12.
22 Ibid.
23 Kock, E. (2024). Hendrik Witbooi (Gâbemab !Nanseb) Bible and Whip Repatriation Case. Open Restitution Africa [Interview].
24 Kößler, R. (2019). The Bible and the Whip – Entanglements surrounding the restitution of looted heirlooms. ABI Working Paper, 12.
25 Namhila, E. (2015). Archives of Anti-Colonial Resistance and the Liberation Struggle (AACRLS): An Integrated Programme to fill the Colonial Gaps in the Archival Record of Namibia. Journal for Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(1–2), 168–178. 26 Open Restitution Africa. (2025). Restitution Case Studies (Version 1) [Qualitative]. [Dataset].
27 Kock, E. (2024). Hendrik Witbooi (Gâbemab !Nanseb) Bible and Whip Repatriation Case. Open Restitution Africa [Interview].
28 Open Restitution Africa. (2025). Restitution Case Studies (Version 1) [Qualitative]. [Dataset].
29 Ibid.
30 Udvardy, M., Giles, L., & Mitsanze, J. (2003). The Transatlantic Trade in African Ancestors: Mijikenda Memorial Statues (Vigango) and the Ethics of Collecting and Curating Non-Western Cultural Property. American Anthropologist, 105(3), 566-580. American Anthropologist, 105(3), 566–580.
31 Ibid.
32 Open Restitution Africa. (2025). Restitution Case Studies (Version 1) [Qualitative]. [Dataset].
