Kenya
Officially the Republic of Kenya,[b] is a country located in East Africa. With an estimated population of more than 53.3 million as of mid-2025,[13] Kenya is the 27th-most populous country in the world[7] and the seventh-most populous in Africa.
Capital:
Nairobi
GPS Coordinates:
-1.3026148, 36.828842
Official Language:
Swahili, English
Population:
53.3m (2024)
Field of Practice
Value Added Tax Act of 2013 (Act No. 35 of 2013)
Objectives:
This Act of Parliament provides guidelines for the imposition of value added tax on goods being made or imported to Kenya. Kenya’s Value Added Tax Act No. 35 of 2013 is an Act of Parliament that reviews and updates the law relating to value added tax, providing for the imposition of VAT on supplies made in or imported into Kenya. The Act imposes a tax known as value added tax on goods delivered in or imported into Kenya, and on certain services supplied in Kenya. The legislation has been amended multiple times through various Finance Acts to keep pace with evolving economic conditions and digital marketplace developments.
Restitution Measures:
None.
When a cultural belonging is repatriated to Kenya, the Kenyan government (via the National Museums of Kenya) is the importer of record. Under the standard application of the VAT Act, this import is subject to VAT, calculated on the customs value of the object (which for high-value artifacts can be substantial). The roadblock effect is that this means the very institution (the state) seeking the return of its national heritage must pay a significant tax to itself to complete the restitution.
Framework Limitations:
Placing a monetary “value” on priceless cultural heritage for tax purposes is often ethically, culturally, and practically problematic. Without a standing policy or protocol, each restitution case faces the additional burden of securing a one-off tax exemption, slowing down the process and creating uncertainty.
Invisible Inventories Project
Objectives:
The Invisible Inventories Project is a research and exhibition project that aims to present the European debate alongside African perspectives and positions, seeking to “decolonise” the discourse on restitution by approaching the subject from the perspective of countries of origin. Since 2018, the International Inventories Programme has brought together artist collectives and museums from Kenya, France and Germany to disseminate African perspectives on restitution. It aims to produce a research-based global inventory of Kenyan cultural objects translocated to western museums during the colonial period.
Restitution measures:
None.
Framework Limitations:
The initiative’s primary focus has been on a research-based global inventory.
UNESCO Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict
The Military is not comfortable with the ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention.
Value Added Tax Act 35 of 2013
This Act of Parliament provides guidelines for the imposition of value added tax on goods being made or imported to Kenya. Kenya’s Value Added Tax Act No. 35 of 2013 is an Act of Parliament that reviews and updates the law relating to value added tax, providing for the imposition of VAT on supplies made in or imported into Kenya. The Act imposes a tax known as value added tax on goods delivered in or imported into Kenya, and on certain services supplied in Kenya. The legislation has been amended multiple times through various Finance Acts to keep pace with evolving economic conditions and digital marketplace developments.
Inter-Ministerial Committee
Inter-Ministerial Committee is working on the draft national policy.
National Restitution Committee
A National Restitution Committee is being established.
Draft National Policy
A Draft National Policy is being worked on by an Interministerial Committee in Kenya.
Kenya National Museums and Heritage Act 6 of 2006
Objectives:
This Act of Parliament consolidates laws relating to national museums and heritage, establishing the National Museums of Kenya as a body corporate. It provides frameworks for establishment, control, management and development of national museums while addressing identification, protection, conservation and transmission of Kenya’s cultural and natural heritage. This is Kenya’s principal legislation governing cultural heritage.
Restitution measures:
None.
The Act establishes the National Museums of Kenya with legal authority to identify, protect, conserve and transmit Kenya’s cultural heritage, creating the institutional framework for receiving repatriated objects. As a body corporate, the National Museums gains legal standing to engage in restitution negotiations and formal agreements. The Act’s mandate for heritage identification and protection provides legal foundations for documenting displaced cultural property and supporting restitution claims with official institutional backing. It can be regarded as a critical enabling domestic framework.
Limitations:
The Act operates within Kenya’s domestic jurisdiction and cannot directly compel international returns or override foreign legal systems. The Act empowers the NMK to participate in negotiations. While it establishes institutional capacity for receiving restituted objects, the Act lacks extraterritorial enforcement powers. Its effectiveness in international restitution depends on diplomatic channels and voluntary cooperation from holding institutions abroad. The Act focuses primarily on domestic heritage management rather than providing specific mechanisms for pursuing international restitution claims or negotiations. Ultimately, the Act’s primary concern is the governance of museums and heritage sites within Kenya.
The East African Community Customs Management (Amendment) Act 3 of 2019
Objectives:
This Amendment Act modifies the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, governing customs procedures across EAC Partner States. It establishes updated protocols for cross-border trade and customs administration within the regional economic community.
Restitution Measures:
None.
Section 248A introduces advance binding rulings mechanisms, allowing persons to apply to the Commissioner for pre-import determinations on tariff classification, rules of origin, and customs valuation. The Act makes no explicit mention of cultural property or restitution.
Framework Limitations:
The Act focuses primarily on commercial customs procedures rather than cultural heritage restitution. The Commissioner retains discretionary authority over advance rulings and may refuse applications without specific provisions for cultural property. Section 248A’s scope is limited to standard customs determinations, lacking specialised mechanisms for cultural heritage returns. The framework applies only within EAC Partner States, excluding broader international restitution efforts, and cultural property returns must navigate general trade regulations rather than heritage-specific protocols.
Eastern and Southern African Regional Branch of the International Council on Archives Resolution on Migrated Archives (2011)
Objectives:
The ESARBICA Resolution on Migrated Archives (2011) addressed longstanding difficulties Africans faced retrieving archival records removed during colonial periods to Western capitals. ESARBICA brings together fourteen national archival institutions in Eastern and Southern Africa on archives and records management matters, with efforts underway to include Rwanda, Burundi and South Sudan. Nine countries (South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Swaziland) were covered in various studies and activities.
Restitution Measures:
The resolution provided frameworks for identifying and repatriating scattered liberation struggle archives and colonial records. Between 2006-2009, ESARBICA undertook regional assessments of liberation struggle heritage, noting much heritage had been identified and repatriated with requisite documentation. It established protocols for systematic identification, documentation, and return of displaced archives to origin countries.
Framework Limitations:
The problem has been approached primarily as a legal issue, producing relatively few resolutions to archival claims. The resolution lacked enforcement mechanisms and depended on voluntary cooperation from holding institutions. Most organizations failed to implement comprehensive archival management practices despite identification efforts. Success remained contingent on diplomatic negotiations and goodwill rather than binding legal obligations.
2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage
About:
The 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage is an international agreement to protect and promote non-material cultural heritage; The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention deals with practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills that communities recognise as their cultural heritage; communities and bearers are key actors for safeguarding and transmission; experts are associated.
Restitution Measures: None.
Framework Limitations: The element must be nominated following widest possible participation of community, group or individuals concerned with their free, prior consent
The Common African Position (CAP) on Restitution of Heritage Resources (2024)
Objectives:
This common position paper builds on the AU Charter for African Cultural Renaissance and AU Model Law on Cultural Property Protection, outlining nine priority areas with recommendations for national, continental, pan-African, and international action levels.
Restitution Measures:
The framework establishes comprehensive priorities including heritage resource restitution, identification and inventories, management systems, education and awareness programs, engagement with regional parliaments and national assemblies, youth and diaspora involvement, media and civil society participation, cooperation and partnership development, and arts/culture/creative industries support. The 9 areas outlined for restitution are as follows: – Priority 1: Restitution of Heritage Resources – Priority 2: Identification and Inventories – Priority 3: Management of Heritage Resources – Priority 4: Education and Awareness – Priority 5: African Regional Parliaments and National Assemblies – Priority 6: Youth and Diaspora – Priority 7: Media and Civil Society – Priority 8: Cooperation and Partnership – Priority 9: Arts, Culture and Creative Industries. These priorities create systematic approaches for addressing restitution across multiple sectors and stakeholder groups.
Framework Limitations:
The document explicitly lacks binding authority and legal power, functioning purely as policy guidance. It cannot compel state action or enforce compliance with its recommendations. Implementation depends entirely on voluntary adoption by individual African states and regional bodies. Without legal mechanisms or enforcement powers, the framework’s effectiveness relies solely on political commitment and available resources. The broad scope across nine priority areas may also create implementation challenges for countries with limited capacity or competing development priorities.
African Union Model Law on the Protection of Cultural Property and Heritage (2022)
Objectives:
This framework supports protection and restitution of Africa’s illicitly acquired and stolen heritage resources by providing guidance for developing or strengthening national legislation on cultural property protection. It serves as a reference document for African states seeking to establish comprehensive heritage protection frameworks.
Restitution Measures:
Article 27 specifically addresses restitution provisions within cultural property protection instruments. The Model Law provides standardized approaches for incorporating restitution mechanisms into national legislation, establishing legal foundations for recovery claims. It was referenced in ECOWAS’s 2019-2023 Regional Action Plan for Cultural Property Return, demonstrating practical application across regional frameworks.
Framework Limitations:
As a model law, it lacks binding legal authority and requires individual state adoption through domestic legislation. Countries and regional communities must independently source all resources needed for implementation, creating significant capacity and funding challenges. The framework cannot enforce compliance or guarantee implementation consistency across different African states. Its effectiveness depends entirely on political will, available resources, and each nation’s legal system capacity to transform model provisions into enforceable domestic laws with practical restitution mechanisms.
UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP) (1978)
Objectives:
This committee operates complementary to the 1970 UNESCO Convention framework, facilitating bilateral negotiations between countries for cultural property return and restitution. With 147 state ratifications as of March 2025, it encourages nations to conclude formal agreements for cultural heritage recovery.
Restitution Measures:
The Committee provides mediation services, technical expertise, and diplomatic channels for negotiating returns. It offers neutral ground for discussions, helping establish protocols for identifying, documenting, and transferring cultural objects. The framework enables systematic approaches to restitution claims while respecting both origin and holding countries’ legal frameworks.
Framework Limitations:
Despite broad ratification, the Committee lacks enforcement powers and relies entirely on voluntary cooperation. Its recommendations are non-binding, limiting effectiveness when countries refuse participation. The framework cannot compel returns or override domestic laws protecting current holders. Additionally, the Committee’s mandate focuses primarily on post-1970 illicit transfers, potentially excluding many colonial-era claims. Success depends heavily on political will, diplomatic relationships, and mutual agreement rather than legal obligation, creating inconsistent outcomes across different bilateral negotiations.
The UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property
Objectives:
The UNESCO 1970 Convention establishes a framework for State Parties to prohibit and prevent illicit import, export and transfer of cultural property.
Restitution Measures:
Article 7 outlines specific restitution procedures: upon diplomatic request from the origin State, another State Party must seize and return stolen cultural property from museums, religious institutions or public monuments within its territory. Key requirements include proper documentation proving the object’s institutional inventory status, and the requesting State must provide supporting evidence for its claim. Importantly, good faith purchasers or legal title holders are entitled to just compensation from the requesting State.
Framework Limitations:
However, international conventions lack binding legal authority unless ratified by individual member states. This means sovereign nations are not mandated to implement these restitution approaches, significantly limiting the Convention’s practical enforcement power. The framework’s effectiveness ultimately depends on voluntary state compliance and domestic legislative implementation rather than international legal obligation.
