Kwame Opoku On African Artifacts: Time In Restitution Matters

Okpa Mkpuru (Igbo Mask) Image: British Museum

BY KWAME OPOKU

“The British Museum takes its commitment to being a world museum seriously.’’ Statement by a British Museum spokeswoman in response to demand by Pokomo(Kenya) for the return of their looted ancestral drum.

Asante, Edo, Yoruba, Igbo, and many other African peoples have been waiting for more than 100 years to see the restitution of their cultural objects that European imperialists and colonialists looted with great violence and destruction during the heydays of Western imperialism. For decades, the demands for the restitution of Dahomean artefacts stolen by the French under General Alfred Amédée Dodds in 1892 at Abomey, the Benin bronzes that were stolen in the notorious invasion of Benin City by a British Army of 1,200 men under Admiral Sir Harry Rawson on 9 February, 1897 and the Ethiopian artefacts looted by the British Army under General Sir. Robert Napier on 13 May 1868 have been met with dead silence or other forms of negation.

When the present writer started two decades ago to argue for the restitution of looted African artefacts, many of the African peoples from whom these objects were violently wrenched were so discouraged, dejected and so tired that they wondered whether we were not embarking on another fruitless and wasteful endeavour. Some said they did not want to start again in their old age, attempts made in their youth which had been totally without any success and on which the Western museums only appeared to pour scorn. This was more or less the general atmosphere until the famous speech by the French President Emmanuel Macron in 2017 at Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, before a full amphitheatre of students. After this we had the ground-breaking report of Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy in 2018.

The Sarr-Savoy report ,The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational Ethics, set in motion many waves and activities that have not yet ended. The Germans quickly produced a set of guidelines for handling collections out of colonial contexts that was presented as Germany’s answer to Macron’s initiative. Within a year, the document was revised in view of general criticisms. German Culture Ministers met to agree on measures and principles to quicken restitution procedures that was followed by new decision to set up an agency to facilitate search of African artefacts reacting to the demand by a plea signed by German and international scholars and intellectuals to open up inventories and archives of German ethnological museums. Hectic German activities appear geared to avoid further objections to the 600milion euro museum, Humboldt Forum, that is to open finally in November 2020 with display of looted African and Asian artefacts previously held by the Ethnology Museum, Berlin.

Some Dutch museums revised their rules regarding requests for restitution of artefacts looted in the colonial period and have been praised by many who obviously have not read the relevant texts.

The British Minister for Culture as well as the Director of the British Museum re-affirmed their well-know position not to entertain any demands for restitution despite vain hopes of others that the British may follow recent trends and accept restitution as a solution to the increasing demands for restitution of looted artefacts. The Sarr-Savoy report has been the subject of many debates and panel discussions in France as well as in United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands but has been generally accepted as the most important document on the issue of restitution. Many Africans, including the present writer, consider the report as the best thing that has happened in the area of restitution during the last 100 years. African museum directors and intellectuals have welcomed the report and its recommendations on restitution. Western museum directors and others who have been against restitution of looted African artefacts have been, as expected, less enthusiastic if not outright hostile. Art dealers have been shocked by the new proposals and see their trade and profits in danger. Before the report had been officially submitted to President Macron and published, some were already calling it a controversial report and thus pre-empted the right of the public to read the report and make up its mind. Some of the criticism that followed the publication of the report revealed that many critics had not actually read the report or misunderstood the task entrusted to Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy. Many did not pay attention to the fact that the two academics had assembled a great number of scholars, experts and museum officials in their commission who are expressly named in the report. The Director of the Musée du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac as well as officials from his museum participated in some of the consultations even though he later distanced himself from the recommendations of the report. Attempts therefore to present the report as the work of only two ‘radical’ scholars, expressing only their personal views without any consultations are totally wrong.

The impact of the Sarr-Savoy report eventually cannot be denied even by its worst critics who appear confounded by simple statements and proposals that should be familiar to all who have followed discussions on restitutions in the last few decades. Bénédicte Savoy and Felwine Sarr have been recently named as the sixth most influential persons in the art world in a list containing names of 100 prominent persons. We might see more honours coming their way when many African governments wake up, joining their efforts with Asian States and the full dimensions of their contributions are appreciated. People would realize the close connection between colonialism and restitution. The Nobel Prize for Peace might not seem too far. Many institutions, including wealthy foundations, appear ready to support African efforts in this area. We must be careful with those with money and question closely their recent interest in our efforts at restitution. Those who believe that discussions on restitution started only with the Ouagadougou Declaration by Emmanuel Macron or with the publication of the Sarr-Savoy report are of course entitled to their own views of history.

The earth-shaking effects of this report, unique in many ways, have not ceased to trouble illegal holders of African artefacts, many Western museum directors and dealers in looted artefacts and their supporters.

A very remarkable criticism by those supporting the so-called universal museums who are, per definition, against restitution, is to turn around and point out that the French government has not been fast enough. They point out that not much has been done by France since the report was published in 2018. Some started complaining a few months after the publication of the report, saying that it was 8 months already since the report was issued and nothing had happened; others now say it is almost a year and the French seem to have lost steam. The irony is that those who say nothing has happened since the issuance of the report, cannot deny that there have been intensive debates in most countries; they cannot deny that most Western museums and governments are busy with talking about restitution and are discussing how restitution matters arising out of colonial robbery can be solved. Do the critics attach no importance at all to intellectual, academic, and popular discussions on matters of general public interest? We must, of course, ensure that these debates do not become substitutes for action i.e. the physical return of the looted objects. After all this is not the first time that museums and other institutions have been faced with demands for restitution. We have been writing on restitution for two decades and know that there were others before us pondering on the same issues. Time for action is now and a museum director should not be able to suggest that his new institution would serve as a place for discussing looted artefacts whilst the same museum proudly displays looted Benin items. Similarly, inviting young African scholars and museum officials to participate in debates in Europe and America is fine but it would be more interesting to return the looted artefacts to Africa and observe what young curators have done with the returned artefacts.

Nor does commissioning of African artists in the African diaspora or in Africa to produce a piece of artwork for the museum, serve as substitute for restitution. Some museums pretend they are in a position to play go-between for the African States and Western States or are neutral in the issues of restitution when in fact they are an important part of the problem and the main beneficiaries of colonial loot. They cannot disassociate themselves from colonial subjugation, violence and loot.

Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy have been extremely busy and cannot deal with all the invitations they receive. They are solicited by all sorts of groups and have become something of intellectual stars. They have appeared often in television broadcasts. Macron appears to have been very lucky in his choice of commissioners who did not know each other before receiving this task and yet blend so well. He should support their efforts with more concrete actions.

Those who claim that not much has happened since the publication of the Sarr-Savoy report often furnish, perhaps unwittingly, explanations why such restitution as proposed cannot take place so quickly. They explain the current status of the law, in this case of French Law, which with its centuries old principle of ‘ inalienabilité ’ prohibits the selling or transfer of objects registered in the domain of the State. Critics point out quite correctly that under the present dispensation of French law, most of the looted African artefacts are in the State domain and cannot simply be restituted to the African States. French Parliament would have to change radically current French Law. What the critics do not add, and here one begins to doubt whether they have read the report or simply did not understand it, is that the report itself states that changes in the law would be necessary in order to effect the restitutions recommended: ‘The procedure of restitution supposes a positive evolution of law, within the framework of a modification of the cultural heritage code, articulated in the principle of inalienability of public collections.’ Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy, assisted by Vincent Negri and Isabelle Maréchal, have proposed modifications that would be necessary in French Law for the implementation of their recommendations. Negri and Maréchal, experts on their own, with Sarr and Savoy, consulted legal experts and members of the French Parliament before finishing their report.

Yet many critics report that there would be need for changes in French Law and insinuate that Sarr and Savoy, the two academics, ignored the realities of French Law or were not aware of the legal obstacles. Some critics clearly present Sarr and Savoy as wholly ignorant of French Law of which the critics, some of them non-French and non-lawyers, are fully aware. What kind of intellectual honesty and mode are they trying to project? Attempts to present Sarr and Savoy as some naïve academics, totally uninformed about museum problems and practices, are really unacceptable. Nowhere have the authors of the report suggested that their recommendations could be effected overnight. The authors of the report stated that´

‘The translocation of cultural heritage that has affected Africa for the benefit and profit of France has taken place over a long period of time. In order for the restitutions to be considered as permanent and enduring so as not to cause any unnecessary risks to the objects in question—and to grant the proper time to all actors, on both continents, so as to establish a common “know-how” for the restitutions—the process of restitution itself must adhere and adapt to the rhythms and to the preparations of each nation-state concerned. Concerning these very sensitive cultural questions, the French State must not impose its rhythm and political agenda onto the African States.’

Critics know very well that the implementation of recommendations by the report are left to the discretion of the French Government which is not supervised by Sarr and Savoy.

We have to ask the critics what their estimation of the time required for implementation was. Surely our critics are aware that when France was required in 1815 to restitute the Napoleonic spoliations in Europe, it took decades to effect some transfers and many objects are still in Louvre and other regional French museums. Everyone knows now that it has taken Western States a long time to make restitutions to victims of Nazi spoliations. If African States do not put sufficient pressure on Western governments and museums, they are not likely to be fast in returning artefacts they have kept for more than hundred years. Have the critics forgotten that they were the same people who pointed out that many African States would have to build the necessary infrastructures for the reception of the looted African artefacts in Europe? Readers no doubt know that the so-called Benin Dialogue Group, composed of Western museums from the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany and Austria has been discussing for many years the fate of looted Benin artefacts and have proposed to lend to Nigeria some looted Benin artefacts when a new museum being built in Benin City is ready in 2021. We should note that they will only lend looted objects to their original owners. They have turned logic, law, morality and history upside-down and are angry at those who point out the enormity of their proposals.

But did our critics ever hear that the Republic of Benin has informed the French that they are not yet ready to receive the 26 looted artefacts Macron wanted to restitute? They would only be ready to receive their returned artefacts in 2021 when the new museum built with French support will be ready. The French have even said they are willing to find means of returning the looted objects before the legislature has been able to modify French Law. The French seem ready whilst some African States are not yet ready to receive the objects. How can any honest person say that the French have lost steam? This is the kind of interpretation of facts that opponents of restitution are presenting in respectable publications. Another example, the French Culture Minister praises Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy for their inestimable work and contribution to the current discussions on restitution and adds that the cultural relations of France and the African States go beyond restitution. We immediately read that the French have abandoned restitution and turned to other means of cooperation such as circulation of artefacts, exchanges and common exhibition.

What has surprised me though is that many critics do not seem to appreciate that restitution is not simply the return of looted artefacts. They cite examples of objects returned by Germany to Namibia, such as the Portuguese Stone Cross or the looted bible of the legendary Nama resistance leader Hendrik Witbooi after 126 years. It is then suggested that Germany is advanced in matters of restitution. Yet so far there has not been any general admission by Germany that the looting of African artefacts under the colonial regime was wrong and therefore the objects ought to be returned.

To admit the wrongful nature of German loots would , in the opinion of some, lead to admitting the unjust nature of the colonial system and put them at risk of facing many reparation demands. Restitution is more than the return of the looted object. It is first and foremost, the admission of the wrongful nature of the seizure of the object, the desire to correct the past and seek better relations between the parties. They would have to see the colonial regime for what it was: an unjust system of domination of one people by another wielding superior brutal force and controlling an oppressed people and their destiny. Many have not understood that restitution is a question of the relationship of the parties involved. It is a matter of the relationship between Western States and African States. Many mercantile minds have not understood that the Sarr-Savoy report seeks to lay down new bases for the Afro-European relations, based on mutual consent and respect and not on brutal force and violence that have hitherto characterized the relations between our Continent and Europe. That largely accounts for the hostile reception of that report in some Western quarters. The later part of the title of the report, Toward a New Relational Ethics has been totally lost on many. Some of us would go so far as to say that the relationship of African States and Western States, as reflected by the looting and keeping of the artefacts, is a main objective of the report. This may of course appear complicated for some.

What our observant critics may not have known is that the French Prime Minister Edouard Phillippe handed over symbolically on Sunday 17 November 2019 in an impressive historic ceremony, the sword and scabbard of Omar Saidou Tall who led resistance to French military invasions, as head of the Tukulor Empire, englobing Guinea, Mali and Senegal. The sword had been kept in the Military Museum in Paris. The sword already in the Dakar Museum of Black Civilizations, is to be kept there for another period of five years, the length of time required for modifying French law as proposed by the Sarr-Savoy report.

Whatever the critics of the Sarr-Savoy report may say or do, they should stop the constant insults they hurl at Africans by declaring that we are incapable of looking after our artefacts their armies stole with tremendous violence and mayhem. Looters or holders of looted objects are not in law or in morality entitled to tell the dispossessed owners how to look after their cultural artefacts. Monstrous and voracious institutions, such as the British Museum, holding 13 million objects, mostly looted, cannot deceive us by pretending they hold them on behalf of humanity. They are only ‘universal’ in the sense that they hold looted artefacts from the whole world. Such institutions have failed hitherto to show any humanity to deprived owners of artefacts. These so-called ‘universal museums’ and their supporters cannot declare that restitution takes time and at the same time declare that the French have not been fast enough in the last twelve months with restitutions. Recalcitrant States and their supporters could improve relations if they would, following Emmanuel Macron, also declare that looted African artefacts should be returned to Africa within the next five years. Multiplying activities and initiatives or offering loans of the objects to the original owners will not suffice. These looted African objects must be restituted to Africa.

SOURCE: MODERN GHANA

West Togoland Secession? Please Remember The Senseless Bloodshed In Biafra!

Image via GH Trendz

BY CAMERON DUODU

On 5 January 1967, I was at Accra airport on reporting duties for the London Observer newspaper and hoping to run into some of the delegates who were attending the “Aburi Conference” on Nigeria’s future, hosted by Lt-General Joseph Ankrah, chairman of Ghana’s National Liberation Council.

Luck was on my side, for who would be sitting in the VIP lounge of the airport but Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu, then Governor of the Eastern Region of Nigeria and leading actor in the ongoing drama that had been unfolding in Nigeria since the coup d’état of 15 January 1966..

With Ojukwu was Mr E H Boohene, former chief executive of Ghana Airways and an old friend of Ojukwu’s from their Oxford University days. It was through interventions by persons like Mr Boohene that the Aburi Conference had been made possible. Ghanaians in top positions who had an affinity with Nigerian soldiers and civilians of influence, had become dismayed at the prospect of Nigeria carrying out more blood-spilling, fratricidal acts that would inexorably lead to a full civil war of horrendous proportions.

The fears of the Ghanaians were based on the fact Between May and September 1966, killings of Nigerians by people who harbored ethnic hatred, had led to widespread reports that a “pogrom” of Igbos in the North (in particular) was taking place. The figure usually quoted was 30,000 Igbos massacred by Northerners. General Ankrah, to his credit, wanted to do as much as possible to prevent further killings, as he was fully aware that revenge killings would be taking place in Nigeria on the basis of rumors of pogroms.

Under Ankrah’s discreet chairmanship, an “Aburi Accord” was negotiated by the Nigerians over a period of two days. So frank were the discussions that on several occasions, the Ghanaians in the room excused themselves and left the Nigerians alone, so that they could be even more candid in what they told one another. The discussions touched on every controversy dividing the Nigerians, and when they finally signed a unanimous “Aburi Accord”, everyone was hopeful that civil war had been averted.

Col Ojukwu was waiting for a plane to take him back home when I ran into him. Mr Boohene introduced me and I threw in a few questions before the plane arrived. Noticing Col. Ojukwu’s far from cheerful demeanor, I asked him how the meeting at Aburi had gone. He replied – ominously (I thought) -- that”We have agreed to so many things before. But the trouble has always been with the IMPLEMENTATION of what we’d agreed upon.”

Sure enough, when all the Nigerians returned home and their numerous advisers began to go over the Aburi Accord with a fine tooth comb, they began to offer different “interpretation” of the key decisions taken. Disagreements between the Eastern Region and the Federal side were made public and accusations of “bad faith” began to be bruited about. Fed up with what the Igbos considered to be reneging of key points in the agreement by the Federal side, Col. Ojukwu declared on 30 May 1967, that he was establishing a “Republic of Biafra” with himself as its head of state.

A ferocious civil war immediately followed this declaration, and by the time Biafra surrendered on 15 January 1970, hostilities had led to the deaths of an estimated 2 million people or so on both sides. The estimated number doesn't really matter -- Nigeria’s collective psyche had been absolutely torn asunder, by the tragic realization of what brother could do to brother, in practice.

The Federal Government of Nigeria placed an embargo on imports to BIAFRA (especially food and medicine) during the war and this led to the death from starvation and disease of hundreds of thousands of Igbos, including children. Horrible pictures of starving children with bloated stomachs were published in the world press, and left an image of terrible shame to black people not only in Africa but everywhere. Now, if you were to ask any Nigerian today, what was achieved by the civil war, and he were to answer you truthfully, he might say, “We experienced in full, the unexpected consequences of carrying out ethnically-based politics”. A more sardonic answer might be, “We achieved nothing – other than learning that once war is declared, everything “go scatter” (in the words of Fela Anikulakpo Kuti).

In truth, Nigerians couldn’t believe what they had done to one another. An Igbo Editor friend of mine, described to me, while were having a drink at the Enugu Press Club after the civil war, the peremptory defection of a mutual friend to the Federal side: “We were having a drink at this very spot when we heard a federal bomber approaching. Our mutual friend ran away so fast that the next thing we heard -- he had reached Lagos! And -- surrendered to the ‘Feds’!”

There was no mistaking the pain – and scorn – with which my friend recalled this incident. Many similar personal relationships were destroyed in this way by the civil war. At the end of the civil war, the leader of the victorious Federal side, General Yakubu Gowon, promulgated the noble sentiment that “There have been no Victors, and No Vanquished.” But if you ask an Igbo, he would tell you that the “Victors” had, for instance, neglected to restore to the “Vanquished”, the properties they had abandoned all over Nigeria, as they fled in panic to their Biafran enclave. Other accusations of Federal "insensitivity” are remembered by the Igbos to this day. .

I recall these events in Nigeria because there are Ghanaians who, probably unaware of what the Nigerian civil war did to Nigeria, have begun to follow the same steps that brought the Igbos their greatest-ever ethnic tragedy. Look at what happened at Ho on 16 November 2019:

QUOTE: Separatist group declares ‘independence’ for 'Western Togoland'

“A group championing the secession of parts of Ghana along the border with Togo, has declared independence for the territory they call 'Western Togoland'. The Homeland Study Group Foundation (HSGF) announced its separation [as follows]: “Today the 16th of November 2019, the leader of Western Togoland independence, Mr Charles Kormi Kudzodzi, has announced the separation of Western Togoland from Ghana…HSGF has been demanding the secession of the Volta Region and parts of the Northern, North East and Upper East Regions from Ghana….UNQUOTE

“In May 2019, some members of the group were arrested by the police and charged with conspiracy to commit treason felony. However, these charges were later withdrawn by the police. New arrests of some members of the group have been announced since the Declaration of Separation on 16th November 2019.

According to one report, the HSGF intends to ask the United Nations for recognition for “the new state of Western Togoland”. Now, that is a rather strange request, because it is the same United Nations that, in 1956, organised a plebiscite to find out whether the people of the area (who had hitherto lived under UN Trusteeship, administered by Britain, after the Second World War) wanted to become part of the new state that was to become Ghana on 6 March 1957. The result of the UN plebiscite was that the people chose to form part of Ghana. The UN implemented the result of the plebiscite through RESOLUTION 1044. And that’s how “Western Togoland” became part and parcel of independent Ghana.

Although the plebiscite was cleverly organised, so as to ensure that no minority ethnic group was ignored, it couldn't, of course, satisfy everybody. Many people did vote against becoming part of Ghana. Some people in the Ewe communities, in particular, feared that by becoming part of Ghana, the division which the colonialists had perpetrated against the Ewe peoples (by separating them into German, French and British territories) would be perpetuated. However, the intention of the UN to respect the views of the majority of voters, as expressed in the plebiscite, had been clearly stated before people were asked to vote. And UN Resolution 1044 did not quibble about accepting the result.

It needs to be pointed out that since the plebiscite, people in the Volta Region (which incorporates the Western Togoland area) have taken an active part in governing the whole of Ghana, and actually served in administrations which they had either dominated or with which they had been closely affiliated. For instance, the PNDC [military] Government of 1981-1992 and the NDC Governments that followed the PNDC between 1992 and 2000. The NDC also ruled from 2009 to 2017. If elements like the HSGF were not happy with staying in Ghana, why did they not negotiate with their own “comrades” in government at those times, to take acceptable steps to change their situation? Or are they only prepared to stay in Ghana when they exercise an overwhelming influence in Ghana's affairs? Anyway, how can anyone expect the international community to acquiesce to a challenge to UN Resolution 1044, which settled the matter on the basis of the “free and fair” results of an UN-organised plebiscite?

That the Western Togoland leaders have declared their “independence” only under an NPP administration is no doubt a well thought-out provocation. Their main objective is to destabilise the Akufo-Addo administration. But the NPP would be well-advised to handle the issue with tact and maturity. The NPP Government should therefore be nimble and do everything it can to use persuasion to try and isolate the HSGF and put it on the wrong foot. The NPP has a strong case which it must not undermine with emotional reactions. For instance, ECOWAS is becoming increasingly relevant in the whole of West Africa, what with the coming into operation, soon, of the planned system of currency and trade harmonization. Does it make sense to try to separate territory from Ghana and give it to Togo (for instance) when Ghana and Togo plan to use the same currency and charge the same import duties, in any case?

Certainly, any action that could lead to bloodshed or the type of economic and social attrition we witnessed in Biafra, must be avoided in toto. History is watching to see whether we in Ghana do "Remember Biafra!" Indeed, It would do us all a lot of good to look again at those horrible pictures of starving children in Biafra, and note that all that suffering brought -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the end.

Finally, is it not sadly ironical -- and I mean no disrespect -- that an 85-year-old man, who is at the end of his own lifespan, should be the one raising the tragic spectre of such horrendous potential suffering, before the eyes of the children being born in ’Western Togoland’?

SOURCE: MODERN GHANA

The Endless Walk Towards Africa’s Liberation

Africans working at the European rubber industry during the colonial era, but today, we are in a modern diplomatic slavery

BY JOEL SAVAGE

In West Africa, as well as in most parts of East and Central Africa, export products were mainly produced on the farms of the Africans themselves. European plantation production did not take root there due to climatic conditions difficult for Europeans.

The main exploiters of the African manufacturer were foreign companies. Agricultural exports were produced on farms owned by Europeans located in the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, parts of Northern Rhodesia, Kenya, and southwest Africa.

To force a large number of Africans to leave the village every year and go to work, the administration of the settlement colonies artificially created land hunger, limiting the areas of residence of individual ethnic groups to reserves.

The exploitation of the African population could not be carried out without some form of involvement of its representatives in management. The colonial authorities created with their participation a new administrative apparatus or used elements of the pre-colonial era.

This was done not only because of the shortage of colonial European officials but also because of the need to reduce the cost of the colonial apparatus. Without any, minimal social support among the local population could be exploited only by resorting to constant military coercion and control.

A variety of ways to attract Africans to colonial rule basically came down to two forms: direct and the so-called indirect management. In the first case, the colonial administration appointed African leaders to a particular region, disregarding the local institutions of power and the origin of the applicant.

Under an indirect management system, the colonialists formally retained the institutions of power that existed in pre-colonial times, completely changing, however, their content.

The direct control system was more often used in the French colonies, indirect - in the English. But this was not at all an invariable rule. The French in many cases, not only informally, but also formally recognized the power of influential traditional rulers, especially those who actively collaborated with them.

The British often created institutions of supposedly traditional power completely artificially, an example is that among the Igbo people in Eastern Nigeria. And indirect control was incompatible with the settlement colonialism of Kenya, Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, and the British themselves admitted that they used direct control in these countries.

One thing which is clear is, whether slavery has come to an end, the foundation of colonialism has been uprooted or Apartheid has been dismantled, Africa will never be free since developed countries are still parasites or vampires sucking the blood of Africans to sustain their economies.

Recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin said some Western countries have resorted to intimidation and blackmailing African governments to regain lost influence and dominant positions in former colonies. The Russian president said this in an interview with TASS.

According to Putin, in such ways, they strive already in the new wrapper, to pump out super profits, to exploit the African continent without regard to the people living here, and to environmental and other risks."

In this regard, the president is sure, these Western countries impede the rapprochement between Russia and Africa. “It is likely that no one would interfere with such a policy,” the head of state suggested. What does that mean to African leaders?

Since African leaders have no solutions to internal problems, they completely ignore external problems but that’s what is killing the continent. Another thing which has prevented African leaders to speak about external problems affecting the continent is the consequences they may face.

Because they are aware of some leaders, such as Thomas Sankara, who was assassinated for trying to liberate his country from the West but this shouldn’t prevent them from finding solutions to external problems drastically affecting the growth of Africa.

SOURCE: MODERN GHANA

#SexForGrades And Our Obsession With Credentials

BY MISAN REWANE

As I watched the BBC Africa hidden camera footage showing university lecturers abuse their power, it confirmed to me what I already know: employers place too much emphasis on university degrees and grades and it is hurting the continent. Our education-to-employment system is so broken that some lecturers take advantage of the desperation of young people to possess a tertiary degree for fear they will be blocked out of the formal economy for the rest of their lives.

Over ninety percent of formal entry-level jobs in Nigeria require these elusive degrees that are no prediction of competencies, especially in light of what we all know - which is that too often, these grades are distorted by coercion/control.

Given this reality, it has become a “do or die” affair to get a degree by any means because young people are told degrees and certifications are the “keys to the kingdom” rather than the competencies behind those degrees. Some educators take advantage of this warped system as it elevates them to demi-gods of the kingdom who have the power to make or break young people’s futures. This “quiet corruption” across the education-to-employment system begins at the basic education end where you have teachers who coerce students and parents to pay for their (the teacher’s) own afterschool lessons or study materials in order to get favorable grades or “support” during the make-or-break national exams...to secondary and tertiary levels where #sexforgrades and student extortion is commonplace...all the way to the employment end of the spectrum where desperate jobseekers are coerced into “paying to play”.

A colleague of mine once shared that in her private university in Benin, an estimated 50% of graduates paid to influence their grades/degree outcomes. Everyone knows the lecturers who accept or demand bribes, she said, and so from day one, you pick and choose your courses based on whether you intend to “pay to play” or “go it alone”.

This isn’t just an African phenomenon: you can easily find sex-for-grades news articles chronicling incidents in the US or even Singapore, albeit less endemic, or cases of the rich and famous paying their children’s way into university admissions. What’s universal across regions is the growing angst and anxiety that even though you can learn online most of the skills taught in traditional universities, that tertiary degrees are still the gateway to higher earning potential.

The way forward from here is to emphasize competencies over credentials.

We all heard Kiki Mordi open up about how sexual harassment prevented her from getting that degree. Gasp! Who would have thought an on-air-personality-turned-investigative-journalist doesn’t have a degree! And yet, she must have developed the competencies required to produce such stellar investigative journalism output through alternative means. What should matter are the competencies she has developed and not the lack of credentials.

Imagine if 90 percent of job descriptions didn’t block out the 90 percent of Africans who don’t possess a university degree or the “relevant work experience” - which are always the top 2 requirements - and instead focused on the required competencies to deliver on the job?.

It’s time to rethink and rewire our education-to-employment system so it starts to focus on competencies young people are developing inside (and mostly outside) of traditional classrooms and institutions and starts to screen them IN for those competencies instead of screening them OUT for lack of credentials (#CompetenciesOverCredentials). Employers and other “gatekeepers of economic opportunity” owe it to young people to design or adopt existing simple-and-cheap methods for screening based on competencies rather than using degrees as a proxy for capability

I’ve seen how well this strategy can work. Since 2013, our Nigeria-based organization WAVE has been “screening in” such hardworking young people regardless of their education background/pedigree and training them in the skills required to secure work, start a career and build a brighter future. Though the majority of WAVE’s 3000+ alumni do not possess a tertiary degree, their incomes more than double within one year post-training as they transition into formal employment, entrepreneurship or further their education. Elements of WAVE’s screen-train-match model are already being replicated by public secondary and tertiary educators as well as private and social sector organizations to train thousands of young people in work-readiness skills annually.

WAVE is just one of many educators, employers, government enablers and youth who are part of a growing Ready4Work movement committed to growing access to skills development and economic opportunity for young people regardless of their education credentials. Indeed, the shift is happening globally as human-machine partnerships make it increasingly possible to evaluate candidates based on their capabilities rather than age, gender or education pedigree, but I would argue that nowhere faces the emergency need to leapfrog more than the African continent, which will have the largest potential workforce by 2030.

While of course, it is important to work to expand access to tertiary education, we also owe it to the 90% who currently do not get access, to recognize alternative pathway programs that are succeeding in developing these skills in young people despite not being degree institutions.

If we can achieve this, perhaps the next educator who tried to coerce a now-not-so-desperate student or parent would be told to “keep their grades” because the student had actually developed the required knowledge/competencies and was confident that the average employer used inclusive hiring practices that would give her the opportunity to demonstrate her competencies over credentials, her skilling over schooling.

The Writer, Misan Rewane is the co-founder of WAVE, an organization focused on leveling the playing field for young people to access the skills and opportunity to become what they imagine.

SOURCE: MODERN GHANA

Augustine Nwagbara’s False Comparative History Of Ghana And Nigeria – Part 1

BY KWAME OKOAMPA-AHOOFE, JR.

About three days ago, one of my brothers-in-law, Mr. Eric Kwabena Baning, whatsapped to me a videoclip on which a black funerary jumpers-clad Nigerian “professor” of English – as of this press preparation, I have also learned that our subject is a former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Lagos – claiming to be a faculty member of the country’s flagship academy, the University of Ghana, Legon, virulently accused the Ghanaian media of demonizing Nigerians resident in Ghana for heinous crimes – such as rapes, murders and kidnappings – committed by a few Ghanaian resident Nigerians. The “Professor,” Augustine Uzoma Nwagbara, made the foregoing comment at a gathering or rally heavily attended by Nigerians resident in Ghana.

You see, I put his title of “Professor” in quotation marks because Nigerians, generally, are globally notorious for craving for titles they do not have or deserve. For example, nearly every adult male in Nigeria with the equivalent of N 10 (10 Naira) in his wallet wants to be addressed as a “Chief.” Anyway, on the aforesaid videoclip, Prof. Nwagbara made the flagrantly scandalous claim that in nearly every human endeavor, including the continental African Liberation Struggle / Movement, it was the Nigerians who pointed the way to their “younger” relatively wet-eared Ghanaian leadership counterparts.

Maybe somebody ought to have enlightened the obnoxiously patronizing Prof. Nwagbara about the historical fact that when his own country’s flagship academy, the University of Ibadan was established in January 1948, by British colonial default, about 7 months before the University of Ghana was officially established, it was Ghana’s Dr. Robert (Kweku Atta) Gardner (1914-1994) – the maternal uncle of the recently deceased former United Nations’ Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi (Atta) Annan – who was invited to establish the first Adult-Education Department on both the campus of the University of Ibadan and Nigeria at large.

About 22 years ago, a former student of the great Nigerian novelist, Prof. Chinua Achebe, late, who had also been my African Literature professor at the City College of New York of the City University of New York (CCNY of CUNY), by the name of Ezenwa-Ohaeto, published a quite comprehensive biography of his former globally renowned professor, titled “Chinua Achebe: The Author of Things Fall Apart” (Indiana University P., 1997), in which Prof. Robert Gardner was erroneously described as one of the seminal or pioneering European professors of the then University College of Ibadan. I had to promptly rectify this egregious error in a review of the same book that was published in The New York Amsterdam News’ edition of October 1, 1998, during which period I was a freelance writer and the Book Review Editor of this famous and one of the oldest African-American weeklies here in the United States.

I make the foregoing observation to highlight the fact that Nigerian intellectuals and even their most erudite scholars tend to know much less about Ghanaian achievers and the political history of our country than vice-versa. Perhaps this may be the result of the subconscious or unintended arrogance of being the native of a relatively much bigger country. You see, years ago, a very brilliant classmate of mine from the Caribbean island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis by the name of Joseph Hughes – today, he is a bigtime attorney in the Michigan area – quizzed me about the geographical locations of several islands in the Caribbean and other parts of the world. When I could not come up with a single correct answer, Joe jovially accused me of having been severely afflicted with a deadly virus called “The Arrogance of the Denizens of Big Countries and Continents.”

What Mr. Hughes meant was that people who came from relatively big countries and continental landmasses, rather than islands or very small countries, tended to be subconsciously blinded to the fact that the little island nations were equally significant in the scheme of global political affairs and the general affairs of humanity. In his caustic tirade against the Ghanaian people and our media, Nigeria’s Prof. Nwagbara adopted a similar arrogant posture. You see, academically speaking, compared to Nigeria, Ghana is a giant of Shakespearean proportions. And on the latter count, of course, I am thinking of globally renowned and first-class and immortalized intellectuals and scholars like Professors Adum-Kwapong, the erudite classicist, first Ghanaian Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ghana and former Rector of the Tokyo-based United Nations’ University; Willie Abraham, philosopher, sometime Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University of Ghana, author of the seminal classic “The Mind of Africa,” and the first African to be inducted as a fellow of Oxford University’s All-Souls College; Ephraim Amu, the first African to compose chorale music in the standard four vocal pitches, and composer of “Yen Ara Asaase Ni” fame; Kwabena Nketia, the recently deceased foremost African musicologist of his generation…. The list goes on and on and on.

Indeed, there was a time, not quite 30 years ago, when The New York Times called the University of Ghana “The Harvard [University] of West Africa. The anti-Ghanaian rabble-rouser may need to use his sabbatical leave, or whatever academic status he was undeservedly enjoying prior to him getting, reportedly, fired by the administrators of the University of Education, Winneba (UEW), to study the general academic and cultural history of Ghana in the modern or Euro-Western-dominated era and compare the same with that of Nigeria coevally. Trust me, Prof. Nwagbara would be deeply humbled by the findings that he comes up with.

SOURCE: MODERN GHANA

France Weighs How To Return Africa's Plundered Art

African statues, plundered by French troops in 1892 from the kingdom of Dahomey -- modern-day Benin -- are displayed in Paris' Quai Branly museum. By GERARD JULIEN (AFP)


BY KATE LEE AND MARIE WOLFROM WITH AFP BUREAU IN AFRICA

PARIS, FRANCE (MODERN GHANA)--Half-man, half-beast, the tall African statues dominate a busy gallery in Paris' Quai Branly museum. But few of the visitors are aware they are looking at what might be considered stolen goods.

The three imposing wooden carvings were plundered by French troops in 1892 from the kingdom of Dahomey -- modern-day Benin.

"I came here to learn about how these objects were intended to be used, more than how they were brought here," said Michael Fanning, a student from New Orleans, peering up at the statues.

"But it does make me think we should give them back to whoever made them."

From London to Berlin, Europe's museums are packed with hundreds of thousands of colonial-era items. Increasingly, they are facing the awkward question of whether they should be there at all.

The "Scramble for Africa", as Europe's 19th-century land grab came to be known, brought with it a clamour for trinkets from conquered territories, so exotic to the eyes of the colonisers.

Bought, bartered and in some cases simply stolen by soldiers, missionaries and anthropologists, they ended up in museums and private collections all over Europe.

The controversy is hardly new, nor does it concern Africa alone.

Star lawyer Amal Clooney, wife of Hollywood actor George, has advised Athens on its bid to reclaim the Parthenon marbles, vast sculptures which have been in Britain since the 1800s.

The massive Koh-i-Noor diamond, part of Britain's crown jewels and claimed by India, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, is another spectacular example.

But in Africa, a speech by French President Emmanuel Macron has spurred hope that things may be about to change.

"Africa's heritage cannot just be in European private collections and museums," Macron said in Burkina Faso in November.

He charged two experts with working out how to give African artefacts back within five years, prompting speculation that museums across Europe could be pressured to follow suit.

"Suffice to say that he'll have made European curators quake in their boots," said Pascal Blanchard, a historian of French colonialism.

Tangle of problems
French art historian Benedicte Savoy, one of the experts appointed by Macron along with Senegalese writer Felwine Sarr, described her new job as "a hell of a challenge".

Museums have long wrestled with a tangle of legal and ethical problems concerning who really "owns" such objects.

Even in well-documented cases of pillaging, the law often prevents countries from giving them back.

Last year France flatly refused Benin's bid to reclaim its treasures, saying they were exempt from seizure as state property.

European conservationists have also raised practical concerns, worrying artefacts could be stolen or handled improperly if given to inexperienced museums in politically unstable countries.

Blanchard said countries like Nigeria, with well-established museums, had "all the ingredients for solid restitution claims".

But others as poor as Chad "do not currently have the museums and cultural heritage services capable of restoring and displaying these objects", he said.

'These objects belong to us'

Yet many African officials say these treasures should be at home, attracting tourists and boosting national pride.

Few cases inspire more outrage than the Benin bronzes, hundreds of exquisite metal plaques seized in 1897 by British troops from the Kingdom of Benin, in modern-day Nigeria.

Most are now in the British Museum and the Ethnological Museum of Berlin.

For Crusoe Osagie, spokesman for the governor of Nigeria's Edo State, it is simply wrong that his children must go to Britain or Germany to see their heritage in a glass-fronted cabinet.

"These objects belong to us and were forcefully denied to our possession," he told AFP.

As for suggestions that Africans might not look after such objects, he finds the idea insulting.

"It's like asking me how to look after my child," he said. "We are ready to look after them with great care."

Echoes of Nazi looting

Some colonial-era artefacts have been handed back over the years on an ad hoc basis, and UN cultural agency UNESCO has mediated successfully in several disputes since the 1970s.

European and US museums have also been meeting with Nigerian officials since 2007 seeking a solution for the Benin bronzes, but with few results.

The idea of loaning the bronzes, as well as Ethiopian items displayed in Britain, has been floated, but some African officials are affronted by the suggestion of "borrowing" what they see as their own property.

For want of better solutions, many museums are simply trying to approach the issue more sensitively.

German museums have taken a lead -- mindful of their previous experience with Jewish-owned artworks looted by the Nazis.

At Berlin's new Humboldt Forum, labels are set to include details of how colonial-era items came to be in the collection.

And Hamburg's MKG museum is running an exhibition which focuses not so much on its three Benin bronzes, but the fact that they were looted.

Its curator Silke Reuther said visitors appreciate the museum's honesty.

"We are not afraid to show something which is not a beautiful story," she said.

Charred Remains Of Literacy In Nigeria

Image Via Modern Ghana

BY PRINCEWILL NIMI

ABUJA (MODERN GHANA) -- Sixty-five million Nigerians are illiterates, according to UNESCO. Nevertheless, the year has been moderately fine for Nigeria, having fared favorably in enviable awards, such as ranking big as the world's 148th Least Corrupt Country, and topping the list of African countries who live and bath in alcohol. Indeed, a giant of Africa! Nigeria has also recorded outstanding performances in harboring unschooled killer-herdsmen who invade the farms of communities, and destroy lives when resisted, just so their beloved cattle can eat. The most remarkable, is Nigeria's consistent history of electing fairly educated presidents.

As election year fast approaches, one can hastily predict the outcome. Traditionally, two out of five elected presidents in Nigeria are satisfactorily schooled and literate. With an adult literacy rate of 59.6 percent, close to half of Nigeria's population are grossly illiterate. Interestingly, the illiterate population make the greater part of the country's voting strength, and would rather be swayed by popular candidates who lobby and purchase their votes with gallons of palm oil, customized bags of rice, two thousand Naira ($5) or less. The educated population are split into two categories. One half, prioritize political party affiliation far above the prospects of tangible development, while the others are heavily partisan on social media and public hangouts, but record a low voter turnout.

The Nigerian economy under democratic regimes haven't been known to be a flourishing one. This is understandably so, as non-professionals seem to be the overwhelming choice of the people for president. The few seasoned technocrats are either overlooked for their perceived incompetence in amassing grassroots support, or branded 'too elitist' for the rigors of "Nigerian Politics." The favored political slots available to the Nigerian intellectual class at the federal level, are Ministerial/Ambassadorial positions, or the Vice Presidency at best. As the Nigerian ruling party (APC) seeks reelection at the forthcoming polls, Nigerians are once again presented with the option of President Muhammadu Buhari, whose completion of his secondary education is at present the subject of controversy, while of course, his running mate—a professor of law and current Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, is overlooked for the presidency.

A cross-section of Nigerian voters, find more interest in the ethnic and tribal routes of candidates, than their academic qualifications or corporate track records. The Nigerian electorate are also keen on religious preferences. The prospects of a Muslim candidate running for office alongside a competent Muslim running mate is often dead on arrival. One needs no rocket science to ascend to the presidency in Nigeria. A popular individual of considerable advancement in age—who's an 'anointed' indigene of the ethnic or geo-political zone to be favored based on zoning calculations, equipped with propaganda to demonize the current government, massive funds to throw around, as well as good dance steps to showcase at campaign venues is ripe for the job!

The worrisome rate of illiteracy in Northern Nigeria is alleged to be the root cause of terrorism, religious hostility and widespread extremism witnessed in the region. One in every two Christians in the northern part of Nigeria is likely to be physically assaulted over a religious altercation. In some other parts of the country, fashionable women with a loud sense of style are fast becoming endangered species. A lady thought to be indecently dressed is at risk of being shamed, or publicly stripped by mobs. Pickpockets and other roadside thieves aren't finding their career path easy. One caught in robbery would be lucky not to be lynched to death or publicly burned alive.

The Nigeria Police has grown quite a fancy reputation for itself as an internationally recognised violator of human rights. The recruitment of schooled officers into the force hasn't done much good either. Nigerians were recently taken aback by a viral footage of some suspected kidnappers, having their testicles shot and brutally blown up by officers of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) a unit in the Nigeria Police, without legal trial or prosecution.

An enlightened population is synonymous to a developed nation. And quality leadership is the product of an informed electorate. To achieve progress in social development, adult literacy must be given as much attention as building the economy, fighting insurgency and creating employment. If the excessive cost of governance in Nigeria is reduced to a minimum, free adult literacy centres should be established in every local council to aid the reduction of illiteracy through intensive public enlightenment. The fight against illiteracy shouldn't be won only on the pages of newspapers. It should reflect on the streets of Nigeria, where what's left of literacy is its charred remains.

Bio: Nimi Princewill is a writer and social reformer.

Disintegration of Nigeria Is The Cheapest Means To Containing Islamic Extremism In Africa

By Ikechukwu Enyiagu, Modern Ghana

No one ever solves a mathematical equation without a formula; no one finds the solution to a problem without first finding the root of the problem. Terrorism didn't just happen; it is the result of decades, and perhaps, centuries of subdued disagreements and misunderstanding. Wisdom demands that prevention often be preferred to a cure. These truths inform this timely advice to the United States of America, Britain, France, and all other affected countries of the world to accept without delay that, in order to contain this virus called terrorism which is speedily spreading all over Africa, Nigeria must be disintegrated without further delay.

Like a mustard seed, terrorism only has to have a point of contact-no matter how small. Whilst the Nigerian genocide against Igbos from 1967-1970 have remained no business of the world ruling interests (those who champion human rights) to this date, terrorism in Nigeria shall force everyone to ask this very vital and inevitable question which has until now been mumbled in different quarters: “Does Nigeria has to remain one?' Of course, the obvious answer to this is a resounding NO! Setting aside the unthinkable amounts of money which the US and other nations have wasted so far in the fight against terrorism, lives threatened, with no one sure where and who it may be next, pose greater worries for the world at large.

Nigeria, a country with over one hundred and sixty million (160,000,000) people, have proven itself ungovernable as one federal state. A foolish leader is not one who makes a mistake but one who refuses to accept his mistake and learn from it; the amalgamation of Nigeria by her majesty's authority was the worst mistake ever made by the British government. Even with the many lives of Igbos wasted, with the backing of Britain, for no justifiable cause, and the corruption which has corrupted everything in Nigeria, until now, the British authorities have not accepted that their “Project Nigeria” was a fatally destructible and failed one. Nevertheless, Islamic terrorism is about to change all that arrogant denial.

Until now the pursuit of a Biafran state out of this failed project called Nigeria has not won all the duly needed attentions and interventions from the United Nations, America, and the rest of the world. However, it will be noted here that Biafra is not the only nation in Nigeria that wants to secede; the entire Northern states of Nigeria have obtrusively been agitating for their separate state, even before the Nigeria-Biafra civil war, where Sharia law shall be the constitution of the day; and at the other end stands the Niger Delta movement. While MASSOB represents the Biafran movement, MEND fights for the Niger Delta and Boko Haram, the Muslim North. And while MASSOB resorted to a non-violent approach to assert and obtain the rights of Igbo nationhood, MEND uses violence to claim their rights, while Boko Haram diversifies terrorism in Nigeria.

According to Gen. Andrew Owoye Azazi, the Security Adviser to the Federal Government of Nigeria, “Terrorism has come to stay in Nigeria. This was in confirmation of the British secret service's report that Al-Qaeda has planned to use Nigeria as their African headquarters to attack the west. And true to it credentials, Boko Haram, the extension of Al-Qaeda in Nigeria, has now sworn that “the country would not have peace until there is 100 per cent implementation of Sharia law in the country as enshrined in the holy Quran.” This therefore leaves no question as to whether Nigeria will metamorphose into a Pakistan, an Afghanistan, or even another African Somalia; the question the west and indeed the rest of the concerned member states should be asking now ought to be: “Should we let Nigeria evolve into a Somalia, or an Afghanistan, or even a Pakistan in Africa?” Considering the effects of fighting terrorism and mostly the damages it has inflicted so far, the obvious answer to this, again, should and must be a resounding NO!

Having considered the conditions of Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, South-Sudan, and Somalia, I have come to the only wise and workable conclusion and solution to a terrorism-free Africa: A disintegrated Nigeria. If British intelligence claims Nigeria to be the proposed African headquarters of Al-Qaeda, then it could be since the sings are on the increase. One of the many reason large sums of money are wasted and lives lost in combating this international crime is the precautions and cautions taken by America and its allies to avoid killing innocent citizens, and the sole reason terrorism has lasted this long is because those involved take advantage of civilian-populated zones , both to hide and to attack. In the case of Nigeria and, by extension Africa, knowing the source of the problem would lesson the degree of wastes always envisioned and encountered. The economic instability in all of the western countries today is the effect of fighting terrorism-the effect of refusing to prevent from occurring and, instead, preferring to cure when the whole system has been effectively affected. Not everything has immediate cure if and when not initially prevented from occurring. Lastly, I'd like to advice the US and all concerned that, before the decision to send drones or to come in to fight terrorism (which has actually gained legal residence in Nigeria) is made, please help Nigerians to help you. Nigeria has truly shown the final sign of a failed state when it lost the capability to provide security to protect its president; how much vulnerable can an ordinary Nigerian be? But before the west comes in to increase our pains as a means of reducing yours, give us the help we need to reduce yours without having to increase ours; help us to dissolve this lethal mistake of an experiment called the Federal Republic of Nigeria. A stitch in time saves nine.