There are many variables which are often stated when discussing this but ultimately they should all really return to yes, they should be returned.
Initially you have to look at fundamentally how they were obtained, in this case it was stolen, which is immediately a red herring. But even then, many of these artefacts have been obtained through dirty deals, which always benefited the colonialist. They make a claim on the artefact as because they've found it it should be rightfully their own and it's continued through the cheek of the spokeswomen in the article when she states that “The museum is one of the world’s leading lenders and the trustees will always consider loan requests subject to usual conditions" which is absolutely ridiculous considering it's a stolen item.
Again in this case, it's an artefact which holds great precedence within the Rapu Nui peoples culture, as it embodies an emotional connection which is not going to be understandable by those who do not follow or are part of that culture, and it's not being respected by the item being withheld. It's not really our place to judge whether the artefact does or does not contain "the spirit of their people", when to them it does.
'But in the British Museum it's more publicly available for people to see' - As an archaeologist one of my main gripes is how disconnected it is from the public but there is a correct way of doing it, and this isn't it. It's ethically wrong and what advantage does the 'real' artefact in this case have over a copy of it? I don't see any. In museums you're also generally not allowed to touch the artefacts, they're purely for display.
In turn, people will argue that the BM can conserve the item better compared to it being on Easter Island and the possibility of theft while there is an issue. True, but can the investment that would be made here not be placed into the Island and it's upkeep? It's also not our artefact to decide what or how it is conserved. It's the Rapu Nui peoples, and it is for them to choose how it is used, displayed and kept.
I believe that these items and the people (aswell as many others around the world) should be recognised as culturally impressive and important, but it also doesn't give us the right to choose how or where it is put. It also doesn't give us and others the right to see it.