For nearly two years, the Museum of West African Art (MOWAA) in Benin City has remained at the centre of a bitter dispute over money, land and heritage.
What began as a project linked to the campaign for returning Benin artefacts has evolved into a controversy involving government, royalty, museum officials and lawmakers.
At stake are about N3.8 billion reportedly committed by Edo Government, claims of more than $18 million in external funding and 6.210 hectares of disputed land.
More importantly, the controversy raises a fundamental question; who should control the institution that will receive Benin artefacts returning home after more than a century abroad?
That question has gained urgency as restitution moves from diplomatic promises to physical returns.
Germany agreed in 2022 to return 1,130 Benin Bronzes to Nigeria, marking one of the largest restitution arrangements involving African cultural property.
The Netherlands returned 119 Benin artefacts to Nigeria in 2025, while the University of Cambridge transferred legal ownership of 116 objects in 2026.
Switzerland also returned 18 Benin artefacts in June 2026, adding to a growing stream of objects returning to Nigeria.
Consequently, the MOWAA dispute has become part of a global debate about restitution, ownership and the responsibility to preserve cultural objects after their return.
The Benin Bronzes have become symbols of that debate because thousands of objects were looted during the British invasion of Benin in 1897.
Museums and private collections subsequently dispersed the objects across Europe and North America, making their restitution a complex international cultural issue.
For Nigeria, therefore, the challenge begins where restitution ends; where should returned objects be kept, who should care for them and who decides their future?
That question now lies at the heart of the MOWAA controversy.
On Aug. 20, a special committee chaired by Adams Oshiomhole submitted its report to Gov. Monday Okpebholo.
The committee recommended renaming MOWAA the Benin Royal Museum of African Art and returning it to the Oba of Benin, Oba Ewuare II.
The recommendation followed an earlier resolution by the Edo House of Assembly urging the state government to take over ownership and control of MOWAA.
Together, the investigations have placed the museum’s finances, land arrangements and institutional structure under intense scrutiny.
According to Oshiomhole’s committee, the controversy began with an earlier agreement between the former Edo administration and the Benin Royal Palace.
The committee said former Gov. Godwin Obaseki’s administration agreed to fund a Benin Royal Museum on land provided by the Oba.
Oshiomhole said the arrangement was publicly announced and welcomed by Edo residents.
The project emerged against the background of the Oba’s campaign for the return of artefacts looted during the 1897 British invasion.
That campaign attracted international attention and helped generate interest from potential partners and donors.
However, the Oshiomhole committee said the original concept subsequently changed.
“The Obaseki administration demolished Central Hospital and changed the original name of the museum to Edo Museum of West Africa Art, EMOWA,” Oshiomhole said.
He added that the name was later changed to Museum for West Africa Art, MOWAA.
For the committee, the changes were not simply matters of branding but raised questions about the project’s character, ownership and control.
For the Benin Royal Palace, however, they represented a departure from what it understood to be the original agreement.
The Palace has consistently challenged the MOWAA arrangement.
For instance, Prince Aghatise Erediauwa, speaking for the Royal Family before the Edo Assembly, alleged that the original royal museum project was “hijacked”.
He argued that the subsequent changes undermined the original arrangement and could affect custody of Benin artefacts when they return.
Palace representatives told the Assembly committees that the royal institution had no involvement in MOWAA and questioned the legitimacy of the arrangement.
The Palace’s concern goes beyond the physical building.
For the royal institution, the museum is inseparable from the question of who has legitimate authority over Benin’s cultural heritage.
During a protest in Benin, one participant told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) that artefacts taken from the palace during the 1897 invasion should return there.
“The artefacts were stolen from the palace when the British invaded Benin in 1897. They should be kept where they were stolen,” the protester said.
That argument reflects a wider question confronting Nigeria and other African countries pursuing restitution.
Does returning an artefact to Nigeria necessarily mean returning it to a government institution, or should traditional institutions connected to the objects have custodial authority?
Nigeria has already attempted to address part of that question nationally.
In 2023, former President Muhammadu Buhari directed that the Oba of Benin be recognised as owner and custodian of repatriated Benin Bronzes.
The National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) however, said in 2025 that it would oversee retrieval, conservation and display with the assent of the Oba.
That arrangement illustrates that Nigeria’s position is not necessarily a choice between the Federal Government and the Palace.
Instead, it envisages traditional custodianship alongside national technical and institutional responsibilities.
MOWAA consequently sits within an already complicated national heritage framework.
The NCMM says it manages 53 museums and outlets, 65 national monuments and two UNESCO World Heritage Sites across Nigeria.
Its collections include material from major cultural centres such as Benin, Ife, Nok, Igbo-Ukwu and Esie.
That raises another question; what should an internationally funded museum in Benin City add to Nigeria’s existing heritage infrastructure?
Money, meanwhile, has become another major fault line.
The Oshiomhole committee said the Edo Government released about N3.8 billion to the project between 2022 and 2024.
The Edo House of Assembly put the expenditure at N3.850 billion, saying the money was used to construct the MOWAA Institute Pavilion.
Oshiomhole said the funding included N800 million in seed money and another N1 billion approved shortly before the Obaseki administration ended.
The size of the public investment has therefore become central to the argument over who should control the facility.
If the state financed construction, should it own the resulting institution?
Or, as the Oshiomhole committee argues, should the museum belong to the traditional institution whose heritage it was established to preserve?
That question remains contested.
The financial controversy does not end with Edo Government’s contribution.
The committee also examined claims by MOWAA management that more than $18 million had been received for land acquisition and archaeological excavation.
Oshiomhole said the investigation found the claims to be false.
However, that allegation remains disputed and should not be treated as a judicial finding of theft or financial misappropriation.
The Edo Accountant-General, Julius Anelu, was quoted by the Assembly as saying the state Treasury had no record of receiving $18 million.
“The Treasury is not aware of any income from international donors. We did not receive any 18 million dollars for the project,” he said.
Oshiomhole also referred to reported international commitments, including €4 million from the German Government and $1.5 million from Leventis.
The resulting question is straightforward; what funds were pledged, what funds were received, by whom and for what purpose?
Until those questions are independently established, the donor-money claims remain disputed elements of the controversy.
Behind the financial questions lies an equally complicated property dispute.
The museum stands on 6.210 hectares associated with the former Central Hospital in Benin.
The Assembly said the Central Hospital title had not been revoked under the Land Use Act before certificates were issued to Legacy Restoration Trust and subsequently MOWAA.
The committee also said the land was allocated without payment.
Tony Ikpasaja, then Managing Director of the Edo State Geographic Information Service, valued the property at about N33 million.
He told the Assembly that the land had been acquired at no cost.
Those findings have raised questions about the legal basis for transferring the property and developing the museum there.
Even if the management question is settled, another remains; who legally owns the land and structures built on it?
That question may ultimately require judicial determination.
The Assembly investigation also examined alleged links between MOWAA’s leadership and the former administration.
Its report said 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.
Those 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.
It 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.
Other former officials reported to have declined invitations included Osarodion Ogie, Joseph Eboigbe and Oluwole Osaze-Uzzi.
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.
That distinction matters because possession and ownership are not necessarily the same thing.
An institution may physically return an artefact while negotiations continue over its legal status, conservation arrangements or future display.
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.
