Connect with us

Column / Opinion

Ortom: Between Rwanda’s Tutsi and Nigeria’s Hutu, by Majeed Dahiru

Published

on

Share


Frustrated by the mass killings in his state, which has resulted into thousands of deaths and the displacement of millions of people, Samuel Ortom, a Tiv and the governor of Benue, a state that is plagued by farmers/herders clashes, had this to say of President Muhammadu Buhari, a Fulani. “Mr President is pushing me to think that what they say about him, that he has a hidden agenda in this country is true because it is very clear that he wants to fulanise but he is not the first Fulani president. Shagari was a Fulani President, Yar’ Adua was a Fulani President and they were the best in the history. But President Buhari is the worst President when it comes to issues of security and keeping his promises’’.


The reaction from the presidency was fast and furious as if they were waiting for Ortom to throw the first punch before he is dealt a fatal blow. In a statement signed by presidential spokesman, Garba Shehu, Ortom was accused of ethnic and religious hatred for the Fulani as well as crass political opportunism amongst many other sins.

According to Shehu, “every time he feels the wind may be blowing in a certain direction, he follows it. Unfortunately, for the good citizens of Benue State, the most dangerous direction he blows in today is that of sectarianism and ethnicity.


“In an attempt to boost his sinking political fortunes, Ortom takes the cheapest and lowest route possible by playing on ethnic themes – and in doing so knowingly causes deaths of innocent Nigerians by inciting farmers against herders, and Christians against Muslims.

Specifically, Ortom stirs up hatred by targeting one single ethnic group in Nigeria – using language reminiscent of the Rwandan genocide. As was the case in Rwanda where the then Hutu leaders of the country incited their countrymen against each other, claiming there was a “secret Tutsi agenda” over the Hutu, Ortom claims there is a “secret Fulanisation agenda” over other ethnic groups in his state and in Nigeria. This is a copy of the language of Hutu Power – which falsely, and intentionally, accused the Rwandan Tutsi of plans to dominate the country’’.


In Nigeria’s ongoing cow wars, truth appears to be the main casualty. Unable to contain what it describes as farmers/herders clashes between sedentary farming communities and nomadic pastoralists over land and water resources, the current administration of President Muhammadu Buhari has resorted to disinformation dissemination as a means of public misinformation in an effort to obfuscate the identity and motive of killer herdsmen.

In the last six years, there has been a consistently deliberate effort on the part of official information managers of the Buhari administration to turn land owners to encroachers, aggressors to the aggressed and killers to victims in ways that portray terrorists as freedom fighters in Nigeria’s raging cow wars.


Whilst it is acceptable for the Buhari presidency to draw parallels between what happened in Rwanda in 1994 and the current happenings in Nigeria, it is unacceptable to deliberately switch the roles of various dramatis persona in what seems to be an unfolding re-enactment of the Rwandan tragedy in Buhari’s Nigeria in order to suit its official narrative.

Whereas, the Hutu are a predominantly farming group while the Tutsi are a pastoralist group, there is a tendency in Buhari’s Nigeria to liken Fulani herdsmen to Tutsis of Rwanda and the Tiv as well as other farming communities to their fellow Hutu countrymen.


However, the hood does not make a monk and contrary to the narrative of the Buhari presidency, the Rwandan style genocide is already happening in Nigeria. And in the on-going genocide, killer Fulani herdsmen that are carrying out mass killings, destruction of farm lands, rustling of cattle and kidnapping for ransom across the country are the aggressors, whose murderous activities approximate to Rwanda’s Interahamwe, the Hutu militia group that was responsible for the massacre of nearly one million Tutsi’s in 100 days. The Tutsi’s of Nigeria are the unarmed and defenceless citizens that are daily hacked down to their untimely death in Benue, Plateau, Taraba and other farming communities across Nigeria.


Another striking similarity between the Hutu Interahamwe and their killer Fulani herdsmen counterparts in Nigeria is that both killer groups kill moderate members of their own ethnic group who do not subscribe to their murderous agenda.

Just as the Interahamwe killed fellow Hutus that were not part of their anti-Tutsi agenda so are killer Fulani herdsmen killing en mass their own Fulani kinsmen that are not members of their murderous gang of marauders in Zamfara, Sokoto, Niger, Katsina, Kebbi, Kaduna and other parts of Nigeria’s Fulani homeland after rustling their cattle.


Much like the Hutu dominated power in 1994 Rwanda from the beginning to the end of the genocide against Tutsis, the Fulani are in power in Buhari’s Nigeria as the genocide against sedentary communities are going on. If the Hutu government of Rwanda actively backed the Interahamwe in their mass killings of Tutsis in Rwanda, it appears that the Fulani dominated government of Nigeria is unwilling to contain the murderous excesses of their killer herdsmen-kinsmen.

In place of the grouse against the Tutsi by the Hutu of a ploy to dominate power in Rwanda and the propagation of bitter memories of the oppressive rule of the Mwami, the Tutsi king of Rwanda during the colonial era through hate mongering pro-Hutu media organisations, the grouse of Nigeria’s killer Fulani herdsmen is that pre-colonial grazing routes and reserves have been encroached upon by sedentary farming communities across Nigeria, hence justifying their killing expedition as a mission to recover what rightly belongs to them.

Unfortunately, the chief propagator of this incendiary fallacy is not the media but the Buhari administration through official government communication. Time without number, President Buhari has made the claim that gazetted grazing routes and reserves have been encroached upon by farming communities and the only panacea to peace and security in Nigeria is the recovery of these routes and reserves for the nomadic Fulani herdsmen.


Unfortunately, in Nigeria’s ongoing cow wars, the Buhari administration seems to be more concerned about wordings of the lamentations of victims of killer herdsmen, who identify their killers by their Fulani ethnicity, than their bereavement over the loss of thousands of human lives. Safe for intellectual dishonesty, the information managers of the Buhari administration are experienced enough to know that there is a clear difference between promoting violence and reporting violence.

Similarly, there is a world of difference between criminal profiling of an ethnic group and the ethnic profile of an individual or group of criminals. In conflict zones all over the world, media reportage of wars and other forms of violence are patterned to reflect the racial, ethnic, religious and political persuasion of the warring groups in order to highlight the socio-cultural, historic and environmental factors responsible for the crisis.


In Hitler’s World War II Germany, the world was informed that six million Jews were exterminated at gas chambers by Nazi Germans of mostly Aryan race in a racially motivated mass killing. The Middle East crisis is reported as an age-long conflict between Jews and Arabs of Palestine. Apartheid South Africa was rightly described as a White minority dominated Black majority country where racial inequality, social and economic injustice reigned. Ousted leader of Sudan is wanted by the International criminal court in The Hague for backing Arab Janjaweed militia men to carry out genocide against the non-Arab communities of western Darfour region.

The Muslim community in Nigeria often stand in solidarity with the Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar who have come under violent attacks by radical Buddhists, while blaming the Buddhists dominated government in Yangon of aiding and abetting the killing of their fellow Muslims. Recently, the President was said to have lost his appetite following what his government described as a ‘’pre-arranged’’ killing of 25 Muslim travellers along Jos Bauchi road and his police force described the perpetrators as ethnic ‘’Irigwe’’ youths.


What Governor Ortom and others like him whose people are victims of mass killings by killer herdsmen are doing is simply reporting the violence in their states and not promoting violence against Fulani people in general as claimed by the presidency, in the same way the Tutsis of Rwanda cried out to the world over the Hutu powered genocide of their people. Otherwise, how did Garba Shehu come about the information that the crisis in Rwanda was genocide by Hutu against their fellow Tutsi country men and not just a ‘’farmers/herders’’ clashes between Hutu farmers and Tutsi pastoralists?


More than Ortom and anyone else, the Buhari administration is most guilty of the charge of ethnicisation of criminality in Nigeria when it stubbornly categorised the raging violence in Nigeria as farmers/herders clashes. And it was in Ortom’s Benue that the tone was set for this unfortunate ethnicisation of herdsmen terrorism. In its reaction to the killing of over 70 people in Benue in 2017 by killer herdsmen, the Buhari administration, speaking through former minister of defence, Mansur Dan Alli, declared the mass killings as farmers/herders clashes and blamed the signing into effect of the anti-open grazing law by Governor Ortom.

Minister Dan Alli also blamed the blocking of grazing routes and encroachment on reserves across the country as remotely responsible for the carnage. In his own belated reaction, President Buhari admonished the people of Benue state to learn to accommodate fellow Nigerians and live in peace. And not a single individual was brought to justice for the killings. Therefore, who are the farmers and who are the herders? You can beat a child but you can’t ask the child not to cry.


Share

Column / Opinion

Wada Maida’s touch on journalism, Oche Echeija Egwa

Published

on

Share

On Thursday, September 16, 2021, headquarters of News Agency of Nigeria(NAN) in Abuja was formally renamed Wada Maida House, a befitting honour to a veteran journalist, who worked most of his life for the agency. Until his death, August 17, 2020, Malam Wada Abdullahi Maida, 70, was the Chairman of the NAN Board.

Before then, Wada, as he was popularly and preferably known, was Managing Director of the news agency for eight years, after working as Editor-In-Chief. The former Editor-In-Chief, who was a pioneer staff in 1978 with eight others, following the establishment of NAN in 1976, also served variously as Zonal Editor, Kaduna, in charge of Western States, Political Editor and Western Europe Correspondent, London.

Wada’s career trajectory reflects the history of NAN in its 45 years of existence. For the period of his appointment as Chief Press Secretary to then military Head of State, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari in 1984, and retirement to start a private media business of consulting and publishing a newspaper, Peoples’ Daily, Wada’s his image continued to looms large. He influenced many appointments and recruitments, facilitated access to government, states and federal, and used his international network to the advantage of NAN.

To Wada’s credit, his predecessors and successors, NAN remains the most webbed media institution in Nigeria, with a reputation for accuracy and balance in reporting. NAN has hundreds of reporters across 30 states and a metro office in Lagos, many district offices covering major towns and villages, and foreign offices, that until recently, were active as European Office in London, North American and UN Office, New York, West African Bureau, Abidjan, Cote D’Ivoire, North Africa, African Union Office, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and South African Office, Johannesburg.

Wada played a major role in the structuring and sustenance of the agency’s global spread to gather news to enrich the content of bulletins and increase subscribers, which include almost all media houses in Nigeria, partnerships and exchange agreements with Reuters, AFP, Xinhua Chinese News Agency, DPA of Germany, Pan African News Agency and Rossiya Segnodya of Russia.

Among some significant milestones and legacies, the former Managing Director ensured that the agency owns its operational buildings in New York, Johannesburg and Abidjan and a five-storey marble edifice in Abuja, which he supervised completion and upgrade of working tools. President Muhammadu Buhari approved the naming of the headquarters after the former Chairman on November 26, 2020.

Conveying the approval, the Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, said it was in recognition of the immense contributions of Wada to the growth of the agency.

“I write to convey my approval for the naming of the NAN headquarters building after the late Wada Maida, who served the agency in many capacities, including Foreign Correspondent, Editor-in-Chief and Managing Director.

“It is my sincere belief that the decision to honour the late Wada Maida is well thought out and that he deserves such a great honour, considering his immense contributions to the development of NAN,” he said.

At the ceremony, Mohammed commended management and staff of NAN for immortalizing Wada. “Wada played a strong role in NAN. The man who built this edifice deserves to be immortalised.’’

“He believed journalism served a higher purpose for peace, harmony and development. If a country goes down everything goes down, with it,’’ Mohammed said. “I appeal to media houses to put Nigeria first. Yes, we have challenges but this administration is working.’’

Wada’s love for journalism started in Secondary School, says his longtime friend and colleague, Sen. Ibrahim Ida. Ida disclosed that the former Managing Director was named Abdullahi Maida at birth, and only got Wada as a pet name while growing up. Wada, taken from “Wadata’’ meant influence and affluence.

The Guest of Honour and Katsina State Governor, Hon. Aminu Bello Masari, said the naming of the NAN House after Wada was well deserved, considering his contribution to the development of journalism in the country and penchant for helping others.

“You can live for 120 years in this world, but what matters is the courage you brought to life and how many people you touched. With this naming, Wada’s life will continue to the end of time.

“That’s a life worth living. He lived for others. Anytime he visited me it was because of the needs of others and his community, not for personal reasons,’’ he said.

Masari noted that the former Managing Director of NAN contributed to the emergence of many media houses, both print and broadcast, in the country, particularly in the Northern part, adding that “the whole of Katsina remains proud of his achievements and many would have made it to Abuja for the ceremony, if they were informed.’’

Senior Special Assistant to the President, Media and Publicity, Malam Garba Shehu, described Wada as “an elder brother, mentor and a facilitator.”

“He lived a life of patience & integrity. We should learn to be patient. Good things will come as we wait. Wada thought us not to rush the story; to be thorough. I recall, as editors, we will always wait for the NAN bulletin before our newspapers will go to bed.’’

The passion for reporting, editing, publishing and Public Relations saw Wada through trainings in London School of journalism, Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Aberdeen College of Technology and University of Salford, Manchester and Nigerian Institute of Journalism. He was once President of Nigerian Guild of Editors, and later became a Fellow of the guild.

He was a member of other associations like the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ), Commonwealth Press Union, Amnesty International, Executive Director of International Press Institute and Chairman of Pan African News Agency (PANA) and Katsina State Broadcasting Corporation.

Wada’s contemporaries in the newsroom, who are also veterans in journalism, his mentees, some former administrators in NAN and other media houses across the country, traditional rulers and political leaders, friends and family were all at the renaming event.

The Managing Director of NAN, Mr Buki Ponle, affirmed that Wada’s leadership guided him to get a first degree and a Master’s degree while working and the former pioneer staff also encouraged him to get a Ph.D, if he wanted.

Ponle said the agency had suffered financial hardship over some years, forcing it to scale down some operations and dream projects for expansion, while thanking Wada’s vision for the progress recorded.

Wada’s family led by his wife, Hajiya Amina and son, Dr Aminu Maida, joined in unveiling the signage, and received a plaque from Governor Masari.

Aminu, witty, reticent and unassuming like his father, thanked President Buhari and the Federal Government for the honour done to his father, telling everyone that the entire family remains grateful to NAN.

 “NAN will continue to be part of our family, and we will always be part of NAN,’’ he said.

Like the Wada Maida House in Central Area, the former Managing Director of NAN continues to stand tall in our memory and a physical structure.

Oche Echeija Egwa, Senior Editor, News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) and Chief Information Officer, Office of the Special Adviser to the President, Media and Publicity.


Share
Continue Reading

Column / Opinion

2023: The North must let go, by Dan Agbese

Published

on

Share

The season is virtually upon us. The politicians are sharpening their knives for 2023. The sound is becoming jarringly louder. Prayer warriors are being pressed into service just like the eyes and the ears of the gods. It is always good to seek the assurances and the support of God and the gods in the battle for political power in our country. It is a battle no one takes lightly. 

But the fate of our country in 2023 is not in the hands of God and the gods. It is in the hands of those who play god, to wit, the party moguls whose bounden duty it is to dispense favours to godsons and god-daughters, even at the expense of peace, unity, a sense of belonging and cohesion in our badly fractured republic. It is our duty as fellow citizens not to allow them to be trapped in their faux pas only for us to blame God and the gods at the end of the day. 

This is the time for the rest of us to put our views across on what should be done to set our country back on the path of oneness. Politics, as the wag said, is too serious to be left to politicians. 2023 presents us with some peculiar but critical challenges, not the least of which is that the crass mismanagement of our diversities under the current dispensation has widened our traditional fault lines and opened some other fissures. This is the time to recognise them, appreciate them and factor them into the permutations for the locus of power at the centre in 2023.

The two major political parties, APC and PDP, are beset with internal problems and wrangling. They have fractured national executive committees and both are engaged in patching things up by constituting reconciliation committees to appease their members who feel aggrieved by the endemic problem of our political parties: the absence of internal democracy. The committees will reconcile them and thus help to staunch the toing and froing from one party to another and back again that instantly changes the fortunes of political parties and their members. These movements are merely an opportunistic exploration of accommodation in a rival political with seemingly greener grass under its feet. Its deleterious effect is the inability of the political parties to build themselves into steady and strong parties able to drive, through their policies and programmes, our national development. Weak and unsteady political parties are afflictions on our democracy.

The first order of business for the political parties is the choice of a national chairman in each case. This is no ordinary choice. It is critical to the political parties because everything else rides on the section of the country that produces the national chairman of each party. In their tradition, the section that produces the national chairman cannot produce the party’s presidential candidate – all thing being equal, of course. 

The real question is not who but which section of the country, north and south should produce the next president in 2023. The fortunes or the misfortunes of each party will depend on its answer to the question. Perhaps, we should lend them a helping hand in the absence of a guiding principle through which the locus of power at the centre is determined at the regular election intervals. In 1983, NPN mooted the idea of a rotational presidency between the north and the south. Its purpose was to ensure that politics being a game of numbers, number alone would militate against equity, fairness and justice. Its new formula was to be put to the test in 1987. It never was because after four years, the generals returned from the political Siberia to service their political fortunes. 

This was later renamed power shift. Different semantics, same  primary purpose. It was the rallying cry by the south in Babangida’s transition to civil rule programme; the argument being that the north appeared bent on domiciling the presidency to the permanent disadvantage of the south, given the number of northerners who had held the levers of power since independence. It was no way to build the nation and unite the people. It was time, the south strenuously argued, for power to shift from the north to the south to make the latter an equal partner in the Nigeria project. That would be the right way to build the nation and unite the people.

Quite a bit of water has passed through the River Niger to the creeks. Power shifted to the south in 1999 and 2011. Still, 2023 presents the country with the same unsettled issue and challenges. The late head of state, General Sani Abacha, introduced the geo-political zoning system as the basis for managing our ethno-political and other interests. It is the formula for sharing or allocating elective and appointive political offices at the centre. It has virtually become an important tradition in both the management and mismanagement of our diversities. Can we use this as the basis for inclusive governments in which every part has a chance to both hold and milk the cow?

It still rankles those who, while recognising zoning as necessary in other cases, appear allergic to using it as the basis for choosing a party’s presidential candidate on the grounds that it would be a cynical abbreviation of individual political ambition. I think we are dealing with some sophistry here. Political parties are constitutional creations by tradition and that is why you find neither APC nor PDP in the constitution. By constitutional tradition they are the platforms on which people seek elective political offices. More importantly, political parties determine independent ways and means of managing power and growing  the  national economy without recourse to the national constitution. Each political party has its own constitution by which it runs its affairs. That zoning is not in the constitution does not prevent a political party from using it as a basis for determining the locus of political power at the centre provided it is satisfied that it makes for equity, fairness and justice and does not offend the letter and the spirit of the supreme law of the land. 

It is the constitutional right of a political party to find ways and means of managing the affairs of a nation. That which it chooses to do does not become unconstitutional by reason of its not being in the constitution. Sophistry is a red herring across the path of serious and rational thinking on managing our nation and its myriads of diversities in a manner that makes Nigeria our Nigeria all of the time, not some of the time. 

The south sees the north and its so-called greed for power as the nation’s main problem. In the next few months as the debate on the locus of power at the centre heats up, copious evidence would be provided to show that the north has used its sheer number to dominate power in the country since independence to the discomfiture of the south. This evidence cannot be rationally contested. So long as the south feels marginalised by the north, so long will our country continue to be a patch work of ethno-religious interests masquerading as government of the people; so long as the south feels that it is not an equal partner with the north in the Nigeria project, so long will our country remain an atomistic nation in perpetual conflict with itself; and so long as our political leaders are given to the luxury of paying lip service to equity, justice and fairness sans a commitment to those ideals, so long will the simple formula for building a nation and uniting the people elude us.

Let us quit pretending about this. Buhari’s successor will inherit a fractured republic and a divided people. It behoves our political leaders to appreciate this and take steps now that will de-fracture the republic and unite the people and make our country peaceful. It is time for the north to recognise that it has a moral duty to share and share power equally with the south. Political power is not essentially about merit. It is about what is right for a country at a particular point in time. There are potentially great leaders in every part of the country. To recruit them, we must ventilate the system and end power hoarding.

To move forward, we must take two urgent steps. The first is to accept and formalise power rotation or power shift between the north and the south and cast it in marble. Let us ride on what happened in 2019. APC and PDP zoned the presidency to the north. Two northerners slugged it out. We can do the same in 2023. Power must shift to the south and the two political parties must choose their presidential candidates from there and let them slug it out as to who wears the presidential sash. 

The second step is to accept the zoning arrangement as a means of perfecting the power shift. It is not enough to broadly rotate power between the north and the south; power must also rotate among the zones in the north and the south so that no zone dominates and leaves other zones in the cold.We can emerge from the current crucibles as an enviable republic and a united people. But we must set aside sentiments and face the challenge of nation building with the courage to use political power as an instrument for the good of the nation and its people. I am not naïve enough to believe that this would be easy but I believe we have enough patriotic Nigerians who wish to see our nation pull itself up from the murk of its failed promises, shed its toga of a potentially great country and put on the new toga as a great nation. Then we can to ourselves what President Barack Obama said to his fellow Americans: yes, we can. Yes, we can unite the people and build a great nation.

Email: [email protected]


Share
Continue Reading

Column / Opinion

Campaign for the return of Benin Bronzes and other significant objects taken in colonial era

Published

on

By

Share

Benin bronzes are a collection of more than 3,000 figures and other decorative pieces looted by the British in 1897. Today they are housed in over 160 public and private collections around the world. These objects were created from the 13th century onwards by the Bini people and include portrait busts in brass and bronze. Some were made using the sophisticated lost wax method of casting which was once thought to be an exclusively European invention.

The Benin Bronzes or rather Benin objects, because not all of them are made of metal; some are made from ivory or wood, are objects originating from the Kingdom of Benin.

Ill-gotten Gains

On January 2, 1897, James Philips, a British official set out for the coast of Nigeria to visit the Oba of Benin Kingdom. Historical reports have it that he took a handful of colleagues with him, and it is assumed he went to persuade the Oba to put a stop to the interruptions to British trade.

When Philips was told that the Oba would not see him because a sacred festival was taking place, he went anyway. He never made it back. For the Benin Kingdom, the killing of Philips and most of his party had huge repercussions. Within a month, the British sent 1,200 soldiers to take revenge. On February 18, the British Army took Benin in a violent raid. All the valuables found in the king’s palace and surrounding houses were looted. Within a month, much of the bounty was in England. The artifacts were given to museums or sold at auctions or kept by soldiers for their mantel pieces.

Campaign for the return of our objects

Nigeria has been calling for the return of its artifacts for decades. Some pieces stolen in the raid have found their way back to the country. This happened when the British museum sold several plaques to Nigeria in the 1950s when the Lagos museum was being established. Others, it sold in the open market. But these were not free and it is the full-scale return of our objects that is being called for now.

A key moment came in the 1970s when organizers of the major Festival of Black Arts and Culture; FESTAC ’77, asked the British Museum for one prized item: a 16th century ivory mask of an Oba’s mother {now widely known as the FESTAC head}. The organizers wanted to borrow the work to serve as a centerpiece of the 1977 event, but the British Museum said it was too fragile and therefore would not release it. This incident remains fresh more than 40 years later.

Almost since their looting, demands for the return of our artifacts have been made by Nigeria and other African states. Now with the intense interest in colonial loot, the focus has returned to them. Central to this shift in interest was the announcement by the French President, Emmanuel Macron in 2017 in Ouagadougou to return colonial loot from the French colonial museums and to commission a groundbreaking report by Senegalese writer, Felwine Sarr and French art historian, Benedicte Savoy that ultimately supported his decision.

For the last decade, a consortium known as Benin Dialogue Group with cooperation from the National Commission for Museums and Monuments has been working to repatriate some of these Benin bronzes and establish a permanent display in Benin City.

Obstacles to the repatriation

The British Museum holds about 900 objects arguably the largest collection so far and with the support of the government has denied restitution. This lies within a larger debate about taking responsibility for colonialism as a crime against humanity. Furthermore, the British Museum is currently prevented from returning their loot by the British Museum Act of 1963 and National Heritage Act of 1983.

Those in charge of museums, in the early quest for the repatriation of these artifacts, were initially unaware of the problem of colonial loot. When pressure mounted, they downplayed the critique, ridiculed the critics and even defamed them.

Another pressing question by most museums/governments is what happens to the artifacts upon its return to their home country. Frankly however, this should not be their concern. What the rightful owners do with their art is their decision and this should not delay restitution.

There are many objects in private hands and museums. Appealing to such persons to return them might prove difficult because some are just not willing to do so and there are no laws compelling them.

Many western countries have laws ensuring the return of Nazi-looted art, this approach has not been extended to art stolen from Africa and other parts of the world.

Changing attitudes to repatriation by international museums

Germany’s Minister for Culture aptly captures the changing realities for most international museum institutions. ‘‘We face a historic and moral responsibility to shine a light on Germany’s colonial past. We would like to contribute to understanding and reconciliation with the descendants of people who were robbed of their cultural treasures during the colonial era.”

Asmau Hussain-Braimah,
National Museums, Abuja


Share
Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Trending