Benin city: Who controls Benin’s returned treasures? That question may ultimately require judicial determination. The Assembly investigation also examined alleged links between MOWAA’s leadership and the former administration.
According to News Agency of Nigeria, the Assembly’s report stated that Philip George, a MOWAA director, was a long-time business associate of Obaseki. It further stated that both had co-founded AfriInvest West Africa Ltd. and AfriInvest Capital Ltd. The Assembly also alleged that George was ‘illegally gifted’ 55 per cent of Edo Government’s shares in Benin Enterprise Park through Amaya Real Estate. These claims are allegations contained in the Assembly’s report and require responses from the individuals and companies concerned. Their inclusion in the report should therefore not be treated as proof of wrongdoing.
The Assembly’s investigation began before the Oshiomhole committee was constituted. On Dec. 22, 2025, lawmakers adopted a resolution urging the state government to take over ownership and control of MOWAA. The resolution followed reports by two ad-hoc committees established by former Speaker Blessing Agbebaku. The MOWAA committee, chaired by Isibor Addeh, reported 11 findings and made three recommendations. It urged the government to take possession of the premises, arguing that the project had been funded by the state, and also questioned the legality of the land transfer.
The hearings, however, were marked by resistance from some key actors. Former Gov. Obaseki declined to appear, describing the invitation as ‘offensive and laughable’. His lawyer, Olayiwola Afolabi, SAN, argued that the matter was sub judice because MOWAA had instituted proceedings at the Federal High Court, Abuja. MOWAA management also declined to appear before the committee. The Assembly rejected the argument that the pending case prevented its investigation. ‘The mere filing of a suit cannot amount to a stay of proceedings,’ Addeh said. The committee subsequently threatened to seek police assistance to compel attendance.
The controversy is occurring within a wider global reckoning over colonial-era cultural property. UNESCO has continuously supported international dialogue on restitution, while European museums face growing pressure to return objects acquired during colonial rule. Benin has become one of the most prominent examples because its artefacts are dispersed across major museums worldwide. The British Museum, for example, holds more than 900 Benin objects, according to a 2026 legal analysis of the restitution debate. Germany’s decision to transfer ownership of 1,130 objects to Nigeria in 2022 marked a major development in the restitution movement. The Netherlands’ return of 119 objects and Cambridge’s transfer of legal ownership of 116 objects further demonstrate that restitution involves both physical returns and legal ownership.
Stakeholders say Nigeria must therefore develop institutions capable of receiving, conserving, documenting and interpreting the objects coming home. That responsibility gives the MOWAA controversy significance beyond Edo politics. The museum could potentially become part of Benin City’s cultural economy, attracting researchers, tourists, artists and international institutions. It could also support conservation, education and research while providing a permanent setting for Benin’s artistic heritage.
Yet those possibilities depend on institutional clarity. A museum cannot easily fulfil a national cultural mission when its ownership, land title and management structure remain contested. The dispute also exposes the tension between traditional custodianship and modern museum practice. The Oba represents the historical institution from which many of the artefacts were taken. Government agencies, meanwhile, possess statutory responsibilities for national heritage management, conservation and public access. International donors and museums also require clear legal arrangements before transferring valuable cultural property.
Consequently, any lasting solution will need to reconcile these competing interests rather than simply transfer a building from one institution to another. The Oshiomhole committee has proposed its own answer. It recommended that the existing structure should not be demolished. Instead, the facility should be renamed the Benin Royal Museum of African Art and returned to the Oba for management. The committee argued that cultural institutions should outlive political administrations. ‘The museum should be returned to the Oba of Benin to manage henceforth, as the government comes and goes but the Benin Monarch remains,’ Oshiomhole said.
The recommendation nevertheless raises practical questions. What would government ownership mean if public funds built the facility? What legal instrument would transfer the museum? Would MOWAA cease to exist or simply change its institutional structure? How would existing donors and international partners respond to such a change? And how would the proposed royal museum fit into the Federal Government’s existing heritage framework?
Those questions matter because restitution is not simply about getting objects back. Returned artefacts must also be conserved, documented, protected and made accessible for future generations. For Nigeria, the stakes are now national. The country is receiving objects from foreign institutions while simultaneously determining what kind of museum system should receive them. In that sense, the MOWAA controversy offers a test of Nigeria’s ability to turn restitution into a sustainable cultural institution.
For Edo, however, the immediate issue is more concrete. The state has committed billions of naira to a project whose ownership and institutional future remain disputed. The Palace says the original royal museum was hijacked. The Assembly has questioned the land transfer and financial arrangements. The Oshiomhole committee wants the museum renamed and returned to the Oba. MOWAA has disputed key elements of the state’s position and maintained its separate institutional identity. Meanwhile, the Federal Government is watching a dispute with implications for the custody of returned artefacts beyond Edo.
Gov. Okpebholo has said his administration will study the findings and work with the Ministry of Justice to produce a White Paper. He has also threatened prosecution if wrongdoing is established. For now, the museum remains caught between competing claims of ownership, legitimacy and cultural authority. Yet the controversy has exposed a larger reality: bringing heritage home is only the first step in resolving the legacy of colonial dispossession. Nigeria must also decide who speaks for that heritage, who safeguards it and how future generations will access it.
After more than a century of dispersal, Benin’s cultural heritage is gradually returning. Germany, the Netherlands, Cambridge, Switzerland and other institutions have already taken steps towards restitution, while further returns remain possible. The question Nigeria must now answer is not simply where the artefacts will be displayed. It is who will have the authority to preserve, interpret and pass on the memory of a kingdom whose treasures were scattered across the world in 1897. As the artefacts begin to come home, that question can no longer be postponed.