BY DR MASIMBA MAVAZA | The Zimbabwe High Commissioner to the United Kingdom His Excellence Retired Colonel Christian Katsande has for the first time taken lead in the repatriation negotiations of the first Chimurenga Heroin and Heroes’ remains.
United Kingdom is believed to have several remains of the first Chimurenga fighters. Of the remains there are remains of the first woman African army General Mbuya Nehanda Nyakasikana who was captured and hanged by the colonisers.
The story of her capture and murder exposes the sadistic demonic war crimes committed against the Africans by the British-in the 18th to 19th century. Mbuya Nehanda who led the first Chimurenga was captured and subjected to a unlawful hastily scrambled hearing in a court of injustice. She was convicted after a trial which she was not represented neither was she given an interpreter. She was then sentenced to death by hanging.
Mbuya Nehanda Sekuru Kaguvi Chingaira and several others were hanged. Their remains were not accorded the decent burial instead Nehanda was beheaded and he skull taken to England as a trophy. Mbuya Nehanda and here tools of war and her spiritual gadgets were shipped in a sack to England where she has been displayed in a museum ever since.
After behind the scenes high level discussions and sometimes heated discussions the UK has invited the Zimbabwean delegation led by Dr Mahachi director of Museums to come to the Uk and make arrangements for the repatriation.
Ambassador Katsande is leading the delegation which is in England to clear the way for the high powered delegation from Zimbabwe.
Whenever there is repatriation of remains Often there was a looting, this looting is in conjunction with war or armed political conflict. Repatriation claims for objects involved in this illegal trade of cultural property are especially difficult as proof must be established of the illicit extraction of the objects and thieves seldom document their work, especially in war zones. It is because of this that the repatriation has taken this long.
The British government has not been willing to let go of their loot. This is because the remains and artefacts looted symbolised shift of power from the defeated to the victors. Returning the loot will be a public acknowledgment of defeat. Further more repatriation is never easy, the British Museum Act, a law from 1963, prevents the museum in London from doing the same. The law does set out limited exceptions (such as if the object is a duplicate), but returning the loot of empire is not one of them. … In November 2020, a new law was passed to allow the return of 27 artefacts to former colonies. Zimbabwe has taken advantage of the new law to have the remains and all the loot back.
It is this task where Colonel Katsande is expected to balance his diplomatic skills and his military training.
For all the years Nehanda was displayed in a museum the British realised a lot of revenue.
The UK based Team leader for the repatriation committee Princess Eugine Majuru pointed out that “Artefacts are enriched by being viewed in their place of origin. They are part of the area’s history. These artefacts have been illegally procured. These artefacts are the foundation of a potential tourist trade.”
Defending their delay in releasing the remains Vand A director Tristan Hunt remarked
“Europe’s museums serve a nuanced purpose and shouldn’t automatically bow to calls to return artworks plundered by 19th-century colonisers”
One of the advocates for repatriation Mr Welcome Bhebhe asked “Looted colonial art: Is there the political will to return pilfered artifacts?
From African cultural treasures to artworks and even human remains, calls have been growing louder to return goods appropriated by colonial powers during their often brutal reigns across Africa. But is it mostly talk?While African nations have long demanded the restitution of poached cultural artifacts, in former colonial powers like France and Germany the debate has recently reached fever pitch as cultural and political figures make the case for repatriation.
Addressing a team which is doing the ground work in the UK ambassador Katsande said “Repatriation is about restoring dignity and making right the wrongs of the past.”Another panel member Professor George Shiri said “Repatriation is important as it shows respect for the dead, for cultural beliefs, and for the hurt that has been caused to source communities as a result of the development of science and museum collections.”
Comrade Tando Shambira who is a lawyer and an excombatant reminded the committee that
“Repatriation is the return of stolen or looted cultural materials to their countries of origin. Although a belief that looting cultural heritage is wrong and stolen objects should be returned to their rightful owners. Repatriation claims are based on law but, more importantly, represent a fervent desire to right a wrong—a kind of restorative justice—which also requires an admission of guilt and capitulation. This is what makes repatriations difficult: nations and institutions seldom concede that they were wrong.”
The repatriation of art and cultural objects is a popular topic in the news and there is a familiar list of arguments on either side of the debate. The primary arguments for repatriation, most frequently deployed by countries and peoples who want their objects back, are: It is morally correct, and reflects basic property laws, that stolen or looted property should be returned to its rightful owner.Cultural objects belong together with the cultures that created them; these objects are a crucial part of contemporary cultural and political identity.To not return objects stolen under colonialist regimes is to perpetuate colonialist ideologies that perceived colonized peoples as inherently inferior (and often “primitive” in some way).
• Museums with international collections, often called universal or encyclopedic museums, are located in the Global North: France, England, Germany, the US, places which are expensive to visit and therefore not somewhere most of the world can go to see art. It is precisely a colonial legacy that allowed so many “universal” museums to acquire the range of objects in their collection.
• Even if objects were originally acquired legally, our attitudes about the ownership of cultural property have changed and collections should reflect these contemporary attitudes.
On the other hand the colonisers advance very shameful arguments against repatriation, most frequently deployed by museums and collections which hold objects they don’t want to lose, are:
If all museums returned objects to their countries of origin, a lot of museums would be nearly empty.
Source countries do not have adequate facilities or personnel (because of poverty and/or armed conflict) to receive repatriated materials so objects are safer where they are now.
•Universal museums enable a lot of art from a lot of different places to be seen by a lot of people easily. This reflects our modern globalist or cosmopolitan outlook.
The ancient or historical kingdoms from which many objects originally came no longer exist or are spread across many contemporary national borders, such as those of the ancient Roman empire. Therefore, it’s not clear to where exactly objects should be repatriated.
•Returning cultural objects which were obtained under colonial regimes to their countries of origin does not make up for the destruction of colonialism.
•Most objects in museums and collections, at the time of their acquisition, were legally obtained and therefore have no reason to be repatriated.
The debate over repatriation engages powerful and personal sentiments of morality, patriotism,nationhood, and identity, and few people can talk about it without raising their voice. Regardless of this passion, however, the issue, ultimately, is a legal one and the international legal frameworks developed in the 20th century are what bring about repatriations. The first, which recognized the damage of warfare to property, was the 1907 Hague Convention, which forbade plundering of any kind during armed conflict, although it did not deal specifically with cultural property. The 1954 Hague Convention, however, in the wake of the widespread destruction of art during the Second World War, sought to expressly protect cultural property during armed conflict. The 1970 UNESCO Convention allowed for stolen objects to be seized if there was proof of ownership, followed by the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, which calls for the return of illegally excavated and exported cultural property. Without these conventions and treaties, there would be no legal obligation for the return of anything.
The vast majority of repatriation cases derive from colonial or imperial subjugation. Throughout history, across the globe, powerful nations and empires have taken valuable objects, including cultural property, from those they have conquered and colonized. These objects of beauty and esteem number in the many millions and most will likely be lost to their former owners forever. However, the theft of a few especially valuable and/or important objects have proven unforgettable and the subject of frequent repatriation requests.
The looting of defeated peoples’ cultural heritage by war has been common practice since ancient times. In our situation the looting of art and remains was a series of confiscations of artworks and precious objects carried out by the British army or officials in Zimbabwe.
The dedicated members who attended the meeting with the ambassador were Princess Eugene Majuru, Agnes Zengeya, Professor George Shire, Dr Masimba Mavaza, Mr Welcome Max Bhebhe, Mrs Mashavave Embassy staff, Deputy Ambassador Karodza, Zim London Ambassador Col Christian Katsande, Col Stanford Kufa , cde G Chamboko and cde Peter Mavunga.
The Zimbabwean Team is expected in the country soon and now with the support of the ambassador the remains of Nehanda and others will soon be given the respect and honour they deserve.