Ghana’s president wants African human remains returned and a lasting international process for cultural restitution. The test is whether countries holding that heritage will agree, reports Jon Offei-Ansah
Keypoints:
- Mahama puts human remains first
- Ghana proposes standing restitution procedures
- Agreement and funding remain unresolved
PRESIDENT John Dramani Mahama has proposed standing international procedures for returning African cultural heritage and called for the immediate, unconditional return of human remains. He set out the proposals at a high-level side event on the sidelines of the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 23, 2026. Ghana’s account of the event announces no binding international agreement.
That distinction is the heart of the story. Governments and museums can support restitution in principle while disputing who authorises a return, what evidence is needed and which laws apply. Mahama wants a process that can address those questions consistently. ‘We must move from acknowledgement to action and from commitment to implementation,’ he said.
Why human remains come first
Mahama placed human remains ahead of the wider debate over objects. ‘Human remains are not collectibles. They are not specimens. They are our ancestors,’ he said. He called for their unconditional return as the starting point for a broader process.
The distinction gives his appeal immediate human force. A claim involving a person’s remains raises questions of dignity and the wishes of descendants and communities. Mahama’s demand asks holding institutions to consider why those remains are still subject to lengthy negotiations.
He recalled Ahanta King Badu Bonsu II, whose head was taken after his execution by Dutch colonial authorities in 1838 and returned to Ghana in 2009. The case shows why restitution cannot be reduced to a dispute over museum inventory: for generations, his remains were separated from the people to whom his history belonged.
Turning goodwill into a process
Mahama’s wider proposal calls on UNESCO, the United Nations and countries holding African heritage to develop clearer legal and diplomatic procedures. He wants more open archives, easier research into how objects were acquired and fewer obstacles to their return. Those are requests for cooperation, not rules already adopted by those organisations or countries.
The September intervention builds on work Ghana announced earlier. Africa Briefing reported in June that Mahama had launched three bodies covering political advice, cultural restitution and legal pathways. The panels are therefore background to the New York story, not a fresh announcement from the event.
Their work may help frame claims. Returns, however, still depend on decisions by the countries and institutions holding the heritage. A useful process would have to establish how records are shared, how claims are assessed and how decisions reach the people and communities concerned. Mahama has identified the need; the official event accounts do not show that holding institutions have accepted common procedures.
A common procedure would not make every claim identical. Its value would lie in making the steps clearer: what records a holder will disclose, how a claimant can respond and when a decision can be expected. Those details are still to be negotiated. Without them, even a well-supported claim can remain caught between public expressions of goodwill and an institution’s existing rules.
The Netherlands illustrates that gap. Mahama cited the cataloguing of approximately 2,000 Ghanaian artefacts. But Africa Briefing previously reported that Dutch authorities said established procedures would still apply before individual objects could formally be returned. Cataloguing may make those claims easier to pursue; it does not settle them.
Who will support the return?
Mahama also wants investment in the institutions that would receive and care for returned heritage. His proposals cover museums, archives, conservation laboratories, digitisation and training for African curators and historians. He rejected inadequate facilities as a justification for continued possession abroad.
‘Capacity must serve as a bridge to return, but not as a barrier to justice,’ he said. His argument is that partners should help strengthen facilities while restitution moves forward. Waiting for every gap to close before considering a return could leave the same objection in place indefinitely.
That position still needs resources. Mahama appealed to development banks, foundations, financial institutions and private investors, but Ghana’s account of the event identifies no committed funding package. It also leaves a question for each return: who will decide how heritage is held, researched or displayed once it arrives? A national museum, a traditional authority and a local community may have different responsibilities and expectations. Those decisions deserve a place in the process Mahama seeks.
The measure of progress
Ghana has secured a UN resolution, convened a conference in Accra and established three reparations panels. As Africa Briefing’s earlier analysis argued, recognition matters most when it leads to arrangements that produce results. Heritage restitution offers a test readers can follow: identified remains or objects, accessible records, decisions on claims and documented returns.
For now, Mahama has set out Ghana’s demands. The available accounts of the New York event do not document binding global procedures, an agreed funding plan or commitments from holding countries to return specific collections. The next measure of success is whether those countries open their archives, agree to workable procedures and begin with the human remains Mahama has placed first.