Lesotho
Officially the Kingdom of Lesotho[b] and formerly known as Basutoland, is a landlocked country in Southern Africa.
Capital:
Maseru
GPS Coordinates:
-29.310054, 27.478222
Official Language:
Sesotho, English
Population:
2.2m (2023)
Field of Practice
Culture and Heritage Policy of 2006
Objectives:
This policy seeks to promote and preserve Basotho cultural heritage while fostering the economic sustainability of cultural industries. It aims to integrate culture into national development, protect indigenous arts, and empower local artists. This includes making provisions for funding and infrastructure for cultural institutions such as museums, archives, art galleries, and libraries, ensuring their role in preserving national identity.
Restitution Measures:
This policy, coupled with the National Heritage Act, served as impetus to pursue the permanent loan of 80 of King Moshoeshoe’s belongings from the British Museum. This material heritage is seen as central to the exhibitions which will form part of the incumbent Lesotho National Museum.
Limitations:
The policy has never been officially adopted. Thus, it serves more as a working document that is heavily referenced in cultural and creative work in Lesotho. It has no legal or procedural weight.
National Heritage Resources Act No. 2 of 2012
Objectives:
The National Heritage Resources Act extends legislative protection to living and intangible heritage and informs the management measures required for dealing with heritage artefacts, chance finds, ash heaps, and graves.
Restitution Measures:
The legislation controls the export of cultural property, which is a foundational requirement for repatriation efforts. It also focuses on the documentation, preservation, and presentation of cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) for future generations, in collaboration with local communities, meaning Basotho cultural values are centred in this process.
Limitations:
The Act called for the establishment of a Heritage Council that would serve as overseer and advisor to the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture – however, this council has yet to be convened, leaving the sector lacking in systemised coordination. While the Department of Culture has absorbed most of this responsibility, it does not have specific repatriation protocols in place.
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.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)
Objectives:
It establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world and it elaborates on existing human rights standards and fundamental freedoms as they apply to Indigenous peoples. Article 34 of the framework endorses the freedom of Indigenous Peoples to determine their institutional structures and their distinctive customs.
Restitution Measures:
Article 11(2) states that States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. The UNDRIP was adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007.
Framework Limitations:
Implementation has been challenging, due to discrimination, incompatibility with national laws, lack of involvement in decision-making. The primary limitation is that It is not legally enforceable through international courts.
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.
