Our claims are based on different sources of law ;

1) Natural Law: Robbery is against natural law. These artifacts were created by the native populations of Africa. They were stolen, often in a context of mass murders; they do not belong to the countries where they are detained; they have to be returned to their natural owners; it should not require more explanation; it should be obvious to whoever has a mind and a consciousness. 

2) Royal Law: Many of these artifacts or at least the finest did belong to Kings, Queens, or Chiefs. So these Royal Authorities are more than entitled to claim back their artifacts. Our societies were then based on customary law. And many of these kingdoms have actually supported our campaign for restitution. Here are some examples of Royal Institutions that gave a mandate to the State of African Diaspora to make restitution happen.

-A few years ago, the United Kingdoms of Africa and the Forum of Kings and Traditional Leaders of Africa published a statement in which they expressed their support to the campaign led by Dr. Louis-Georges Tin « in order to return these goods and artifacts torn from our legacy ».

-In 2021, the Panafrican Council of Traditional and Customary Authorities « gave a mandate to the State of the African Diaspora to discuss with any public or private entity holding African artifacts and to return them to their countries of origin. »

-In 2021, the South West African Federation (SWAF) represented by His Royal Majesty Francis Kelechi Nwaneri III, made a statement saying that « the Kingdoms of SWAF give a mandate to the State of the African Diaspora to discuss with any public or private entity detaining African artifacts and to return them to the continent. »

-On March 23, 2017, Dr. Louis-Georges Tin invited 13 kings of Benin to support his appeal published in the French newspaper Le Monde. The title of the text was: « Give back to Benin the treasures looted during colonisation !». 

https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2017/03/23/rendez-au-benin-les-tresors-pilles-pendant-la-colonisation_5099660_3212.html

The kings supporting this initiative were :

• Sa Majesté Adjagnon Honfin II, roi d’Adjahonmè;
• Sa Majesté Akpaki Gobi Yesse Some, roi de Parakou ;
• Sa Majesté Athanase, roi de Lokossa; 
• Sa Majesté Chabi Yataou Tamou, roi de Bouè; 
• Sa Majesté Daagbo Hounon To Madje Houna II, pontife du Vaudou; 
• Sa Majesté Dedjalagni Agoli-Agbo, roi d’Abomey; 
• Sa Majesté Djagou Agba Kotan II, roi de Dassa-Zoume;
• Sa Majesté Gandjegni Awoyo Gbaguidi, roi de Savalou; 
• Serge Guézo, prince d’Abomey et de Savé;
• Sa Majesté Kpodegbe Toyi Djigla, roi d’Allada;
• Sa Majesté Oba Adetutu, roi de Savé; 
• Son Altesse impériale Sabi Naïna III, empereur de Nikki; 
• Sa Majesté Yeto Kandji, roi d’Agonlin  

-In March 2021, Zanzan Karwor, head of the National Council of Chiefs and Elders of Liberia, signed a cooperation agreement saying « that the Council gives a mandate to the State of the African Diaspora to discuss with any public or private entity detaining African artifacts and to return them to the continent. »

3) State Law

-Benin

In 2016, the Government of Benin sent an official letter to the French Presidency in order to ask restitution of its legacy and explaning their reasons :

« Justification

1) This request for restitution is the initiative of the Representative Council of Black Associations.

2) It is justified on the one hand by the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and on the other hand by the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. The treasures of the Kings of Danhomè taken away by the French conqueror being an integral part of the cultural heritage of Benin, they have their place in Benin and not abroad.

3) Mr. Louis-Georges Tin, President of the Representative Council of Black Associations of France (CRAN) and the former President of the Republic of Benin, Mr. Nicéphore Dieudonné Soglo, published on October 10, 2012, in Le Monde in France and in La Nation in Benin a tribune that pleads for this restitution. »

-Democratic Republic of Congo

The State of the African Diaspora also received a mandate from the Government of DRC, signed by the Minister of Tourism, written as follows : 

« I, the undersigned Dr. Yves Bunkulu Zola, Minister of Tourism of the Democratic Republic of Congo, hereby certify that I have given a mandate to the Government of the African Diaspora State, through its Prime Minister Mr. Louis-Georges Tin, to act in the name of and on behalf of the Ministry of Tourism of the Democratic Republic of Congo with the public and private institutions of the member countries of the European Union in all the requests related to the application of the legal measures relating to the restitution of the tourist heritage of the Democratic Republic of Congo. »

But also many state legislations beyond Africa reinforce our claim. 

European Legislation

In 2019, after the diplomatic strategy deployed by the State of the African Diaspora, 3 articles were voted in the EU Parliament about restitution and reparation.

European Parliament resolution of 26 March 2019 on fundamental rights of people of African descent in Europe  

The European Parliament

7.  Recalls that some Member States have taken steps toward meaningful and effective redress for past injustices and crimes against humanity ­- bearing in mind their lasting impacts in the present - against people of African descent;

8.  Calls for the EU institutions and the remainder of the Member States to follow this example, which may include some form of reparations such as offering public apologies and the restitution of stolen artifacts to their countries of origin;

International  Legislation

Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 

Article 2 

1. The States Parties to this Convention recognize that the illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership of cultural property is one of the main causes of the impoverishment of the cultural heritage of the countries of origin of such property and that international co-operation constitutes one of the most efficient means of protecting each country's cultural property against all the dangers resulting therefrom. 

2. To this end, the States Parties undertake to oppose such practices with the means at their disposal, and particularly by removing their causes, putting a stop to current practices, and by helping to make the necessary reparations. 

Article 3 

The import, export, or transfer of ownership of cultural property effected contrary to the provisions adopted under this Convention by the States Parties thereto, shall be illicit.