The question of trust permeates every aspect of investigating Kenyan cultural objects held abroad. As Marian Nur Goni of SHIFT Collective observes: “When we receive information from museums, the reaction often is: ‘Did we really get everything that we should get? Are they concealing things?’ Trust is central to our endeavour—besides building a database, we are somehow building trust with museums we reach out to, and also building trust among ourselves as a very heterogeneous group.”

For Jim Chuchu of The Nest Collective, certain museum responses triggered deeper suspicion: “The list from one museum really brought that issue to the foreground, because it was the first time I felt there was a deliberate erasure. It is so crudely expressed and performed that I really did cross into a space of wanting to be more ‘prosecutorial’.”

Simon Rittmeier of SHIFT remains cautious about institutional intentions: “I am ‘realistic to pessimistic’ because the legal obstacles are so high that even if a museum wants to restitute, it is a long way to run.”

For Njoki Ngumi of The Nest, the very framing of trust is problematic: “I am struggling with the idea of trust: there is something so benign about it... It assumes that everybody is coming with ‘good intentions,’ whereas ‘goodness’ in this context is very subjective. I worry about this idea that the people holding objects that are not theirs need to trust the other party first in order to bring the objects back, and that the owners of the objects have to sit around waiting to be trusted.”

The power dynamics within the project itself also required honest confrontation. As Rittmeier acknowledges: “We struggled, and we still struggle, to build trust among each other. I remember when I realised that we are in this frustrating situation where all the funding comes from Germany and our Kenyan colleagues are placed in a position of being a partner in a project that is unequal, financially speaking, from the outset.”

Despite these complexities, the collaborative process yielded meaningful results. As Chuchu reflects: “IIP became a movement for data. That meant that our way of being was one of ‘order, logic’, and ‘communication’. We had to put aside the energy of seeking justice, which would be the energy that would be needed if we were a movement for restitution.”

These excerpts offer just a glimpse into the in-depth discussions, research findings, and critical reflections contained in the full ‘Invisible Inventories’ zine. This limited-edition publication features additional articles, object biographies, visual documentation of the exhibitions, and further perspectives on museum politics and restitution debates.

The complete zine is available in both print and digital editions through Soma Nami Books (Kenya) and Iwalewa Books (Germany).
Support this groundbreaking work and deepen your understanding of these complex issues by exploring the complete publication.