Zambia
Officially the Republic of Zambia, is a landlocked country located in Southern Africa.
Capital:
Lusaka
GPS Coordinates:
-15.4163395, 28.2818414
Official Language:
English
Population:
20.2 (2023)
Field of Practice
Cultural Heritage Organisation Committee Kabwe (CHOC)
Objectives:
CHOC is a community organisation comprised of local artists in Kabwe town, Zambia. There is limited information available about the organisation’s involvement in matters of restitution. In 2022, CHOC installed a commemorative sculptural bust of Kabwe Man.
They have a history of long-standing advocacy (since 1970s) alongside Kabwe Municipal Council.
Restitution Measures:
None.
Framework Limitations:
No details on organisational structure, funding, or formal mandate. Activities appear focused on local advocacy and commemoration rather than formal negotiations.
International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics for Museums (Adopted in 1986 and revised in 2004)
Objectives:
This code sets minimum standards of professional practice and performance for member countries’ museums and their staff. ICOM Zambia exists as a National Committee, chaired by Emmanuel Hamatwi
Restitution Measures:
Code addresses diverse topics including acquisition procedures, compliance with legislation, management of resources, security, returns and restitutions. Code advocates strong principles in fight against illicit traffic, concerning due diligence and provenance.
Framework Limitations: Code represents professional self-regulation that is not legally binding, though it is a key ICOM document with prescriptive and normative vision. The revision process began in 2022; final draft to be voted on at ICOM Annual Meeting in June 2026
Interministerial Steering Committee (2009)
Objectives:
This committee is charged with addressing restitution of all Zambian belongings and human ancestors.
Restitution Measures:
None.
Framework Limitations:
The Zambian Government set up an Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee in 2009 to deal with all matters pertaining to cultural property. There is limited access to information about this Committee.The committee remains active but faces significant diplomatic/legal barriers. It has presented the Kabwe Man case at UNESCO ICPRCP convenings. At 24th ICPRCP session (May 2024), the UK proposed alternative plan excluding return; UNESCO backed Zambia, urging both countries to present repatriation roadmap at 2026 session
Bushman Relic’s Act – Northern Rhodesia Ordinance No. 15 of 1912.
Objectives:
The 1912 Bushman Relics Proclamation was intended to protect the material culture of the San people and other archaeological artifacts in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). The proclamation established that no cultural artifacts or human remains could be removed from Northern Rhodesia without a permit from the British South Africa Company, which administered the territory for the UK at that time.
Restitution Measures:
The Act required formal permits for any export of cultural artifacts and human remains. Zambia’s Heritage Act has been in existence since 1912 when it was known as the Bushman Relics Proclamation, changing in 1930 to the Protection of Archaeological Objects Ordinance, showing its evolution into modern heritage protection legislation. Subsequent legislative strengthening meant that 1930 Preservation of Archaeological Objects Ordinance No. 5 focused on protection of archaeological objects.
Framework Limitations:
The Act’s enforcement was limited by colonial administrative structures. A notable case involves the Kabwe skull (Rhodesian Man), where Zambians insist that no permit was ever issued to the Broken Hill mining company when it donated the skull to the British Museum, highlighting enforcement gaps that allowed illegal exports of significant archaeological materials. The Proclamation was issued by British South Africa Company, not independent Zambian government. The Kabwe Man remains unreturned after 50+ years of negotiations (since 1972).
2003 National Cultural Policy
Objectives:
Its objectives focus on fostering respect for Zambia’s diverse cultural heritage, which encompasses over 70 ethnic groups, and ensuring cultural expressions contribute to social cohesion and development. Strategies include promoting a culture of peace and tolerance across the country.
Restitution Measures:
Restitution measures include increasing equitable access to cultural infrastructure for all citizens, regardless of gender or disability. The policy emphasises the protection and viability of intangible cultural heritage elements, such as traditional ceremonies and acceptable rituals like initiation rites, through logistical support and safeguarding mechanisms. This approach ensures that these cultural practices continue to thrive and remain relevant in modern society.
Framework Limitations:
The policy promotes only practices aligned with democratic principles and national unity. The policy balances cultural preservation with the need to eliminate practices that undermine social progress or human rights. The 2003 policy has outlived its relevance; even the 2009 draft revision remains inadequate due to ministry restructuring. This policy focuses on domestic cultural preservation, not international artifact restitution.
CHOC Kabwe (Cultural Heritage Organisation Committee Kabwe)
Limited information is available about the organisation’s involvement in matters of restitution.
International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics for Museums
This code sets minimum standards of professional practice and performance for member countries’ museums and their staff.
Interministerial Steering Committee
Limitation:
The Zambian Government set up an Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee in 2009 to deal with all matters pertaining to cultural property. There is limited access to information about this Committee.
1912 Bushman Relic’s Act (1930 Protection of Archaeological Objects Ordinance)
Objectives:
The 1912 Bushman Relics Proclamation was intended to protect the material culture of the San people and other archaeological artifacts in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). The proclamation established that no cultural artifacts or human remains could be removed from Northern Rhodesia without a permit from the British South Africa Company, which administered the territory for the UK at that time.
Restitution measures:
The Act required formal permits for any export of cultural artifacts and human remains. Zambia’s Heritage Act has been in existence since 1912 when it was known as the Bushman Relics Proclamation, changing in 1930 to the Protection of Archaeological Objects Ordinance, showing its evolution into modern heritage protection legislation.
Limitations:
The Act’s enforcement was limited by colonial administrative structures. A notable case involves the Kabwe skull (Rhodesian Man), where Zambians insist that no permit was ever issued to the Broken Hill mining company when it donated the skull to the British Museum, highlighting enforcement gaps that allowed illegal exports of significant archaeological materials.
National Cultural Policy
Objectives:
The National Cultural Policy of Zambia aims to promote positive local traditions while discouraging negative practices, embedding democratic values and national unity at the heart of cultural identity. Its objectives focus on fostering respect for Zambia’s diverse cultural heritage, which encompasses over 70 ethnic groups, and ensuring cultural expressions contribute to social cohesion and development.
Restitution measures:
Restitution measures include increasing equitable access to cultural infrastructure for all citizens, regardless of gender or disability. The policy emphasizes the protection and viability of intangible cultural heritage elements, such as traditional ceremonies and acceptable rituals like initiation rites, through logistical support and safeguarding mechanisms. This approach ensures that these cultural practices continue to thrive and remain relevant in modern society.
Limitations:
Limitations are implied through the discouragement of harmful traditions, promoting only those cultural values that align with democratic principles and national unity. The policy balances cultural preservation with the need to eliminate practices that undermine social progress or human rights.
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.
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.
UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illicitly Exported Cultural Objects (1995)
Objectives:
The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention is an international legal instrument facilitating restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects through national courts. It establishes minimum legal rules for processing claims and requires state cooperation in returning cultural property to rightful owners, particularly objects of significant cultural importance.
Restitution Measures:
The Convention provides specific operational mechanisms for private claims across different legal systems, working alongside the 1970 UNESCO Convention. It establishes distinct procedures for stolen versus illicitly exported objects, creates compensation frameworks determining cost responsibility, and sets evidence standards for proving claims. Special provisions protect public collections and sacred/communally important objects.
Framework Limitations:
Significant practical challenges exist. Article 3 imposes restrictive time limits: three years from discovering an object’s location and possessor identity, with an absolute fifty-year limit from theft. These timeframes create impractical barriers for many legitimate claims. The Convention’s remedies are not universally applicable across states, creating inconsistent implementation. Additionally, the framework’s effectiveness depends on national court systems and voluntary state adoption rather than binding international enforcement. The Convention applies to property stolen or illegally exported after it entered into force, limiting its scope.
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.
