By Dr. Uche Nnadozie
From authentication and provenance to stolen works of art, resale records and international movement, a proposed National Gallery of Art registry could change the way Nigeria identifies, protects and trades its visual heritage.
For decades, Nigeria’s visual arts have travelled far beyond the studios, galleries and homes where they were created. Paintings have crossed borders. Sculptures have changed hands. Photographs, textiles, ceramics and other works of art have entered private and institutional collections. But, one fundamental question has often remained difficult to answer with certainty: Where did the works of art come from, who made it, who owns it and through whose hands has it passed? The proposed National Visual Arts Registry and Certification Scheme (NAVET) seek to provide an answer.
Contained in a draft Ministerial Policy Framework, NAVET is conceived as a voluntary national registry and certification system for Nigerian visual works of art. Under the proposal, artists could create profiles, owners could register works and obtain National Certificates of Provenance, and eligible works of art could receive travel permits for international movement. At its heart is an ambitious idea: that a Nigerian works of art should be capable of carrying a trusted national record from the artist’s studio through its subsequent changes of ownership.
The problem of an undocumented art market
The proposal emerges against the background of what the policy describes as a significant gap in Nigeria’s visual arts ecosystem—the absence of a comprehensive national record showing who made, owns or moved artworks.
That gap has consequences. It can create opportunities for forgery, disputed attribution, weak provenance documentation, unauthorized copies and the movement of stolen works. The policy framework points to the international attention generated by major sales of works by celebrated Nigerian artist Ben Enwonwu, including Tutu, which sold for US$1.6 million in 2018, and Christine, which sold for US$1.4 million in 2019.
The document also refers to sales through Arthouse Contemporary and cases involving copying as indications of the complexities confronting a market in which the value of Nigerian art is increasingly visible. Yet the challenge is not simply the growing monetary value of Nigerian art. It is the ability of the country to maintain reliable records about its artistic heritage. The draft notes that records of the National Gallery of Art itself remain largely in print, underscoring the urgency of moving towards systematic digital documentation.
A national identity card for artworks?
NAVET could, in effect, provide something resembling a national identity system for works of art. An artist would be able to establish a profile. A work could then be registered and linked to evidence concerning its authorship and ownership. The proposed National Certificate of Provenance would record the evidence on which the registration is based.
Importantly, the proposed certificate would not automatically declare the monetary value of a work of art. Nor would it constitute a blanket guarantee concerning every aspect of the work. Instead, the policy proposes three levels of evidential strength.
At the first level, evidence could include confirmation by the artist or estate, identification documents and an image fingerprint. The second level would involve documentary evidence, inspection and image fingerprinting.
The third would rely on an owner’s declaration supported by other evidence and an image fingerprint.
The distinction is significant because provenance is ultimately about evidence. Rather than simply asking the public to trust a certificate because it carries the name of a government institution, NAVET proposes that the evidence supporting registration should itself be recorded. The real value of NAVET may therefore lie not in the certificate itself, but in the evidence trail behind the certificate.
Protecting art on the move
Another important component is the proposed travel permit. Under NAVET, registered works of art could be eligible for a travel permit covering up to 12 works. The registry would check the works against reports of stolen artworks before the permit is issued. But the proposed permit would not replace other legal requirements for the export or movement of cultural property. This distinction is important. A digital national registry cannot, by itself, eliminate the responsibilities of Customs, immigration, law-enforcement agencies or other relevant authorities. Instead, NAVET is designed as an additional layer of documentation and verification. For an increasingly international Nigerian art market, that could become particularly significant.
A work leaving Nigeria for an exhibition, auction, collection or other legitimate purpose would have a documented national record that could help establish its identity and provenance.
Beyond ownership: protecting the artist
The proposed registry is also concerned with artists’ rights. Registration would not transfer copyright. Artists or their estates would retain control over their profiles, while owners registering works would be required to notify the artist where applicable.
Where questions arise over attribution, the certificate could be suspended while the dispute is examined.
The framework also recognizes moral rights and proposes that transfer notices could support the resale-share provisions under Section 17 of the Copyright Act 2022. However, the Gallery itself would not collect or distribute resale payments. This is an important distinction in a market where the physical ownership of a work of art and the intellectual property rights attached to it are not necessarily the same thing.
Creating a digital memory of Nigerian art
Perhaps the most transformative aspect of NAVET is its proposed digital architecture. The framework envisages a national registry hosted in Nigeria, supported by daily backups, traceable records and image fingerprints. Cryptographic fingerprints could also be anchored on a tamper-evident ledger or public blockchain. But the proposal does not suggest putting personal information on a public blockchain. Instead, the public would principally be able to verify information through certificate or permit codes. The identity and contact information of owners would remain protected, with disclosure subject to lawful procedures.
In an age in which digital records can be copied, altered or lost, the combination of secure databases, image identification and tamper-evident technology could provide an additional layer of confidence. The technology, however, should remain a means to an end. The ultimate objective is not to make Nigerian art fashionable through blockchain terminology. It is to make the records surrounding Nigerian art more reliable, accessible and sustainable.
Privacy in the age of transparency
A national art registry must also confront a delicate question: how much information should the public know? The draft policy proposes a distinction between information about the work of art and private information about its owner. Members of the public could verify the work, artist and certificate status without necessarily seeing the owner’s identity or contact details.
The National Gallery of Art would function as the data controller, while accredited providers would have responsibilities concerning customer records. The framework also provides for correction and erasure rights and breach reporting. This balance between transparency and privacy will be crucial if artists, collectors, galleries, institutions and other market participants are to trust the system.
Can the system be affordable?
For a registry to succeed, participation cannot become a privilege available only to wealthy collectors. The proposed fee structure appears designed with that concern in mind.
Artist profiles would be free. Registration of works in the National Collection would also be free, as would reports of stolen works and corrections.
The proposed Gallery fee for a National Certificate of Provenance is ₦4,500, with a service-fee ceiling of ₦3,000. A travel permit covering up to 12 works would attract a proposed Gallery fee of ₦6,000 and a service-fee ceiling of ₦4,000.
Other proposed charges cover transfers, upgrades and entry of existing certificates. The framework also allows for fees to be waived or reduced in appropriate circumstances.
From policy document to working system
Perhaps the most important issue is implementation.
NAVET is not presented as a system that becomes fully operational simply because the policy framework has been drafted. The document proposes a phased process extending over roughly two years.
The first phase would establish the institutional and technical foundation. A pilot would follow in Abuja and Lagos, initially focusing on painting, sculpture and photography. The national rollout would subsequently extend across all geopolitical zones and categories before the system enters a scaling phase involving wider recognition and international engagement.
The framework proposes service standards as well. For example, a certificate could ordinarily be issued within five working days, or 10 days where physical inspection is required. Travel permits are proposed for processing within three working days, while transfer records could take two days. There are also provisions for complaints, appeals, annual reporting and periodic policy review.
The National Gallery’s new responsibility
Under the proposal, the National Gallery of Art would own and operate NAVET under ministerial oversight.
The Director-General would be responsible for the National Registry and its data, standards, certificates, travel permits and accreditation of service providers and verifiers. A dedicated NAVET Unit would handle day-to-day operations, supported by accredited providers and verifiers. That arrangement places considerable responsibility on the Gallery.
It means that the success of the scheme would depend not only on policy design but also on institutional capacity, professional competence, adequate funding, technological infrastructure and public confidence.
The policy itself acknowledges risks ranging from low participation and false evidence to cybersecurity breaches, inflation, staff capacity problems, changes in leadership and possible legal challenges.
A new chapter for Nigeria’s art market?
Nigeria’s visual arts have already demonstrated that they can command international attention and substantial financial value. The next challenge is to build the institutional infrastructure capable of supporting that growth.
A functioning national registry could strengthen confidence among artists, collectors, galleries, insurers, lenders, museums and international buyers. It could also make it easier to identify suspicious works, document ownership changes and establish a reliable national statistical picture of the art market.
More importantly, it could help Nigeria move from a situation in which important information about artworks is scattered among individual artists, collectors, galleries and paper archives to one in which critical records are systematically preserved.
The proposed system also sits within a wider policy ambition. NAVET is linked in the framework to the Federal Government’s creative-economy agenda, including targets around economic diversification, employment and the development of Nigeria’s creative industries.
The larger cultural question
There is, however, a deeper issue beneath the technical language of registries, certificates, databases and image fingerprints. Who keeps the memory of a nation’s art?
When an artist dies, when a collector sells a painting, when a works of art crosses an international border or when an important work disappears into a private collection, the history of that object can easily become fragmented. A national registry offers the possibility of preserving part of that history.
For Nigeria, this could have implications beyond the commercial art market. It could contribute to scholarship, cultural diplomacy, collection management, heritage protection, insurance, exhibition planning and the wider understanding of the country’s modern and contemporary artistic history.
The framework proposes that original visual works of art made from 1 January 1918 by Nigerian artists, wherever they are located, could fall within the scheme. It also proposes coverage for works by other artists where the work is held in Nigeria. Antiquities and works predating 1918 are excluded from its scope.
From certificates to confidence
The proposed National Visual Arts Registry and Certification Scheme therefore represents more than an administrative exercise. If properly implemented, it could become part of the infrastructure through which Nigeria protects the integrity of its visual arts market and preserves the documentary history of its works of art. But its success will ultimately depend on confidence. Artists must trust it. Collectors must see value in it. Galleries must use it. Insurers and financial institutions must recognise it. Government agencies must cooperate with it. International partners must understand it. And, above all, the system must consistently demonstrate that the evidence attached to a work of art is reliable.
The draft framework recommends that NAVET should take effect when approved by the Minister, with regulations and technical instruments to follow. It also provides for existing records to be digitized and existing certificates to remain valid. For a country whose artists have increasingly taken Nigerian visual culture to the global marketplace, the proposed registry could mark an important shift.
The ambition is simple to state but profound in its implications:
Nigeria should not merely produce artworks of international value; it should also possess the institutional memory and documentary systems capable of proving where those works of art came from, who made them, how they moved and why they matter.
That may ultimately be NAVET’s most important promise—not simply to certify Nigerian art, but to help Nigeria remember it.
Dr. Nnadozie is the Deputy Director Overseeing the Office of the Director, Department of Documentation and Monitoring, National Gallery of Art.
