ITSEKIRI LEADERS OF THOUGHT
Providing Leadership since 1974
CONTACT:
Chief Edward O. Ekpoko
40, Cemetery Road, Warri, Delta State, Nigeria.
GSM: +234(0)8033918605, +234(0)8021134071
E-mail: edwardekpoko@yahoo.com
Date: 19th July, 2024
The Chairman,
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC),
Plot 436 Zambezi Crescent,
Maitama District,
Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja.
Dear Sir,
RE: DELINEATION OF ALL ELECTORAL WARDS/UNITS OF WARRI SOUTH, WARRI SOUTH WEST AND WARRI NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS OF WARRI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY IN DELTA STATE VIS-À-VIS JUDGMENT IN SUIT NOS. SC/413/2016 AND THE ONGOING INEC DELINEATION EXERCISE
The Itsekiri Leaders of Thought (ILoT) is a socio-political organization that has since 1974 being representing and protecting the Itsekiri ethnic nationality of the Warri Federal Constituency in Delta State of Nigeria and has acted as its eyes, ears and mouth on issues affecting its survival particularly in Delta State, nay Nigeria.
2. The Itsekiri ethnic nationality is the single largest ethnic nationality in the Warri Federal Constituency and therefore a major stakeholder in the Federal Constituency.
3. Sometime in March, 2024, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) invited stakeholders to a meeting at Asaba, Delta State, wherein its intention to commence the delineation of electoral wards/units in Warri South, Warri South West and Warri North Local Government Areas in the Warri Federal Constituency was disclosed. The proposed exercise, according to INEC, is in obedience/compliance with the Supreme Court Judgment in Suit No. SC/143/2016: Hon. George Timinimi & ors vs. Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) which was delivered on the 2nd of December, 2022.
4. We are aware that the delineation of the electoral wards/units in Warri South, Warri South West and Warri North Local Government Areas in the Warri Federal Constituency is ongoing.
5. The Supreme Court Judgment in Suit No. SC/143/2016 directed as follows:
“An order of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant, its agents, servants, privies and assigns to conduct a fresh delineation of all that electoral wards/polling units for Warri South West, Warri North and Warri South Local Government Areas of Warri Federal Constituency in Delta State for the purpose of future elections.”
6. Since the above judgment and the commencement of the delineation exercise by INEC, much publicity has been mounted by the Urhobos and Ijaws as to their position in Warri Federal Constituency consisting of Warri South, Warri South West and Warri North Local Government Areas. The Press and other media have been employed in mounting a campaign for a claim to the ownership of lands in Warri Federal Constituency, the home of the Itsekiris.
7. We, therefore, on behalf of the Committee of Itsekiri Leaders of Thought, wish most humbly to make the truth known to the general public and in particular to your Commission, how our geographical neighbours – the Urhobos and the Ijaws, in full knowledge of the facts notwithstanding, seek to hoodwink the authorities in their desire to dominate and cause the extinction of Itsekiris in their homeland.
8. The Itsekiri Ethnic Nationality whose homeland is mainly Warri in Delta State occupies the Northwestern extremity of the Niger Delta. It is bounded on the West by the Bight of Benin and latitude 50 20’ and 60 North and longitude 50 5’ and 50 40’ East. Their neighbours are Bini to the North, the Ijaw to the South, the Urhobo to the East and the Yoruba of Ondo State to the Northwest. The Area is approximately 1,520 square miles.
9. According to P. C. Llyod in The Benin Kingdom and the Edo-Speaking Peoples of South-Western Nigeria (together with a section on the Itsekiri), published by the International African Institute, London, 1957, at page 172, it is asserted:
“The Administrative Unit known as the Warri Division of Delta Province, whose Area is, 1,520 square miles is approximately coterminous with the territory of the Itsekiri…”
10. At the risk of repetition, we have since 10th February, 1976, in a representation to the then Head of State, General Murtala Muhammed titled, Legal and Historical Facts about Warri, succinctly stated the legal and historical facts of Itsekiri ownership of Warri (now Warri Federal Constituency).
11. About 90% of the land occupied by the Urhobos and the Ijaws in Warri Federal Constituency is so occupied only as customary tenants of the Itsekiris.
12. It is common knowledge that the Urhobos and Ijaws have, in recent years, challenged the ownership and overlordship of the Olu of Warri over the parcels of land occupied by them; but it is not generally known how woefully they have failed.
13. Mr. Chairman Sir, we will now put before you the facts as stated by various courts of law in the land since 1925 when our tenants, as a result of their growth in number and wealth, first attempted to question our ownership of the land in the Warri Federal Constituency on which they are settled by the grace of the Olu of Warri. Here we will deal with only a few important cases necessary to make our point in the three (3) Warri Local Government Areas.
14. WARRI SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA:
There are two (2) Urhobo stocks in Warri South Local Government Area, namely, the Agbassa (or Agbarha Urhobo) and the Urhobo of Idimisobo Quarter of Okere Community. The Urhobo of Agbassa constitute majority of the entire population of Urhobo stock in Warri and equally occupy larger portion of the entire land space occupied by both stocks.
15. THE URHOBO OF AGBASSA IN WARRI SOUTH LGA:
The first case is that in which one Ogegede, an Urhobo, acting for himself and on behalf of the Agbassa people (Agbassa is a quarter in Warri), sued Chief Dore Numa, an Itsekiri Chief who at that time was the accredited representative of the Olu of Warri, for an account of rents payable in respect of the lease of 1908 granted by Chief Dore Numa on behalf of the Itsekiri people to the colonial authority.
16. The three (3) leases are Lease B2 dated July 30, 1906 (Ogbe-Ijoh Lease) measuring 360 acres, Lease B5 of July 18, 1908 (Alder, Wilkey and Pessu Towns Lease) measuring 90 acres and Lease B7 of February 25, 1911 (Agbassa Lease) measuring 350 acres. The case is quoted below:
CASE 1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA DIVISIONAL COURT, EASTERN DIVISION, WARRI ASSIZES, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1925”.
Before His Honour Mr. Justice T. D. Maxwell, Judge.
OGEGEDE (on behalf of Himself and the Agbassa people)
Versus
Dore Numa
Claim: – An account of rents.
JUDGMENT
“…Plaintiffs’ Claim is for an account of rents collected by the defendant in respect of portions of Agbassa land leased to the Government since 1908. No explanation has been given me as to why there has been a delay of 17 years in proffering it. They come to this Court in the persons of a series of utterly illiterate peasant witnesses. Of the first three, each of them seemed to me merely senile; and I accept (not without hesitation) their Counsel’s assertion that they were sober or at least normal in the witness-box. Each of the others seemed to me to be abysmally stupid as well as ignorant.
The evidence, such as it is, of the whole set of them is a tissue of hearsay, of rumour, of contradictions, of absurdities. Where it is not merely fatuous it is obviously fictitious.
The local (and legal) position of the defendant was on 1st February, 1924, finally laid down by the Full Court in Denedo v. Dore Numa.
…I do not consider it necessary to call upon the defendant or his witnesses; the onus of proof is on the plaintiffs and they have, in my opinion, signally failed to discharge it.
Their claim seems to me both idle and preposterous. The fact that they have made it at all (and of that I can take judicial cognizance) has caused no little local excitement, and has to a certain degree dislocated trade and might even have led to a breach of the peace. I dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim and award costs to defendant assessed at one hundred and twenty-five guineas”.
(signed) T. D. MAXWELL, J.
6th NOVEMBER, 1925
17. Having lost the above case, the Urhobos of Agbassa came out more directly with their intentions in the claim for absolute ownership of Warri in 1926. Ometa, on behalf of the Agbassa Urhobos re-opened the case which Ogegede had lost in the previous year. This became known as the celebrated Ometa versus Chief Dore Numa Case. The judgment of Webber, J. reported in 9 Nigeria Law Report pages 46 – 50 is as follows:
OMETAN VERSUS CHIEF DORE
“The case before me teams with laches and acts of acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff and the Agbassa people.”
“As to the evidence on which the Plaintiff and his people seek a declaration of title to these lands, there is no evidence of actual occupation by the Agbassa people on any of these lands except Agbassa village which has a Jekri name and certain farm lands at Odion and Fugbe.
There can be no doubt on the evidence and this has never been denied by the Defendant and his people that Agbassa over one hundred years ago (i.e. before 1926) came from Agbassa Otor and settled at Agbassa Village and farmed in the vicinity thereof.
The evidence as to whether the Jekris permitted them to have land there and exercised overlordship over them or whether the Agbassa first arrived there is, to some extent, traditional.
This question as to who were the first arrivals can only be determined by reference to events and facts which have happened and are known to us during the last four or five decades.
Now, it has been clearly established that the defendant as successor to the Olu of Jekris and the paramount Chief of the Jekris has exerecised ownership over most of the lands at present claimed by these Agbassas from the beginning of this century. The cases which have come before these Courts show that as the Olu of Jekris the defendant has always exercised sovereign rights over all these lands: Leases granted by defendant to Government of Ogbejo (sic Ogbe-Ijaw) 1906; Alder, Wilkey, and Pessu Towns (1908) and the land adjoining Agbassa Village (1911).
Actual occupation by Government and receipts of rents by the defendant with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Agbassa people.
The particular features in this case are all in support of the contention that the X Jekris are owners of the land, viz:
a) There are no Agbassa people in Ogbejo (sic Ogbe-Ijaw), Wilkey Town, Alder’s Town, and Pessu Town.
b) The head Chief of Odion is Jekri.
c) The head Chief of Fugbe is Jekri.
d) Agbassa Village is known as “Bomali” which is a Jekri word.
e) Not a single Chief of the surrounding lands supports the Agbassa claim.
The head Chief of Effuruh, a Sobo man says that the only land Agbassa possesses is a place called “Bomali” and that the Olu of the Jekris gave it to Agbassa.
And as to services rendered and tribute paid by Agbassa to the Olu of the Jekri I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the defendant and his witnesses on these points.
I am satisfied on the evidence, apart from any legal plea of res judicata that when the Agbassa came to Warri they were given permission by the Olu of Jekris to settle on land which is now known as Bomali or Agbassa Village and that permission was granted to them to farm on lands adjoining their villages.
That from earliest times and during recent years the Agbassa rendered service to the defendant as overlord.
The present action for a declaration of title is misconceived.
If 9 years ago their occupation of their village and farmlands was interfered with and if assistance was refused them by their overlord, an action that under native law and custom they were entitled to remain in occupation without in any way questioning the overlordship of the defendant might have been maintainable and the principles laid down in the 1921 case as to the position of the strangers who were granted land by the Olu might be applied.
The evidence (sic the plaintiff’s evidence) does not warrant a declaration.
On the contrary the evidence negatives ownership by Agbassa people of the lands known as Ogbe-Ijaw, Alder’s Town, Wilkey Town and Pessu Town.
As to Agbassa, Odion and Fugbe no Court could deny the rights of Agbassa to occupy same according to Native Law and Custom provided the overlordship of the Olu of the Jekri was recognized.
As to their claim for declaration of title the Agbassas have failed.”
18. Again, the Itsekiris won the case and the Agbassa people were obliged by the judgment to recognize the overlordship of the Olu as a condition for remaining on the land.
19. This condition applies in all the other cases.
20. CASE 3: APPEAL TO FULL COURT (NOW SUPREME COURT)
The Agbassas were dissatisfied with the above judgment and appealed to the Full Court. The judgment of the Full Court consisting of Kingdom C. J. Berkeley and Butler Lloyd JJ. was delivered in Lagos on 13th March, 1931 by BERKELEY, J. – SEE 9 NIGERIA LAW REPORTS PAGES 50-52.
21. After reviewing the evidence and analyzing the proceedings in the Court below, Berkeley, J., had the following to say, viz:
“In the appeal, the appellants belong to the Sobo tribe known as Agbassa. They are claiming the overlordship of the greater part of Warri as against the defendant who represents the Jekri tribe. The defendant in his representative capacity is at present the officially recognized owner of the land in dispute and the Government has leased a considerable area of land in Warri from him in that capacity.
“The plaintiffs, (i.e. appellants) do not seek in any way to disturb the existing leases, but they claim as of right to be substituted for the defendant in the overlordship of the territory in dispute.
It should be noted that this is a claim put forward to upset an existing state of affairs, and that the legal relationship between the parties, which the plaintiff now seeks to reverse, had been in existence for a great many years.
The onus on the plaintiff to establish the existence of the rights which he claims and not on the defendant to uphold his own rights which have already been recognized and at present exist.
Throughout the evidence given in the Court below the plaintiff has nowhere been able to establish the fact at any time the Agbassas were recognized as the overlords of the Jekri people. What they do is to plead their own occupation of portions of Warri land, deny that they ever paid tribute to the Olu of Jekri, and assert that they were in Warri before the Jekris came there.
The defendant on the other hand asserts that the Jekri tribe were the first to settle in Warri, that their Olu gave the Agbassas a piece of land to live upon and other land to farm, and that the Agbassas have paid tribute or rendered service to Olu for this land from time to time. The defendant is also able to point to certain leases of Warri land made by the Olu of the Jekris to the Government. These leases go back to the early years of the present century, and have been extensively built over since.
With regard to these leases, the plaintiffs explain their acquiescence by saying that they know nothing about them.
But this explanation is not credible. Warri is a restricted area of solid ground enclosed by mangrove swamps and creeks. It is impossible that extensive building operations of a permanent nature could be carried on over a period of years in such an area without the knowledge of those who claim to be the overlords of the land and were actually living on the area.
In my opinion the Agbassa were given permission by the Olu of Jekris to settle on land in Warri. That they have since increased in numbers, wealth and importance until now they feel themselves strong enough to impugn the title of their overlord.
Nor do they limit their claim to land which they themselves occupy, but seek to establish rights of overlordship to land which has always hitherto been recognized as Jekri.
In my opinion they have failed to establish their claims.
I consider that this appeal should be dismissed”.
22. The other two members of the Full Court gave their concurrence to the judgment by Berkeley, J. above, and the appeal of the Agbassas was dismissed with costs.
23. One would like to call attention to paragraphs 3 and 4 from the bottom of the judgment and in particular to the word “impugn” in the fourth paragraph from the bottom that is, “That they have since increased in numbers, wealth and importance until now they feel themselves strong enough to impugn the title of their overlord. “Nor do they limit their claim to land which they themselves occupy, but seek to establish rights of overlordship to land which has always hitherto been recognized as Jekri” How apt!
24. CASE 4: THE AGBASSAS APPEALED TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN LONDON
Never seeming able to understand or perhaps in their self-conceit, the Agbassa people appealed to the Privy Council in London and this appeal was listed as No. 65 of 1932.
25. Lord ATKIN delivered the judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Present were LORD ATKIN, LORD ALNESS and SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT. The judgment was as follows:
“This is an appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Nigeria who dismissed the present appellant’s appeal from the Judgment of Mr. Justice Webber in an action in which the appellant was plaintiff and the respondents were defendants. It was an action brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of a tribe or sub-tribe in that district of the Agbassa people claiming territorial rights over land known as the Agbassa land in the Warri district of the Southern Province of Nigeria. The dispute was between the plaintiff representing the Agbassa people and the defendants representing another tribe or sub-tribe of the Jekri people claiming to be overlords of this territory.
In the circumstances, there being concurrent findings of fact and there being in addition ample evidence to support them, it is quite impossible for their Lordships to interfere with the decisions which have been arrived at by both Courts and their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. The respondents must have the cost of the appeal”. See 11 Nigeria Law Reports, Pages 18 & 19.
26. At this point, we would summarize thus that the Agbassas lost their battle for the ownership in Warri lands two times at the Supreme Court (Now High Court) in Warri in 1925 and 1926, went on Appeal to the Full Court (now Federal Supreme Court) in 1931 and lost; then went to the Privy Council in London where they also failed in 1933. What else could anybody need in order to know that the Itsekiris are the owners of Warri, including Agbassa?
27. The land mass covered by the judgment in the suits above which relates to Leases of 1906, 1908 and 1911 referred to in paragraph 15 above, covered four (4) of the wards in Warri urban namely, Esisi, Pessu, Igbudu and Bowen wards respectively under the ten (10) ward legal structure as declared by the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/B/109/97: DR. JOSEPH OTUMARA & ORS VS. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & ORS which your Commission has refused to comply with.
28. It is relevant at this point to say that even the Privy Council decision did not end the baseless claim of the Agbassa Urhobos.
29. Each time Government sought to acquire lands in Agbassa and Egbudu areas, the Urhobos of Agbassa would claim the entire proceeds for themselves denying the overlordship rights of the Olu.
30. CASE 5: The Supreme Court presided over by Udo-Udoma, Sowewimo and D. O. Ibekwe SC.JJ in SC/67/1971 and SC/327/1972: (consolidated) Chief Sam Warri Essi (for himself and on behalf of Igbudu people) versus The Chief Secretary to the Federation of Nigeria & Ors, reported at pages 189-234 (1973) 11 SC.
31. After reviewing: -
i. the judgment of Obaseki J. in the said suits in the lower court;
ii. the judgment of Webber, J. and the judgment of the Privy Council in Suit No. 25/1926 – Ometan versus Dore;
iii. judgment of Jackson, Asst. Judge in Suit No W/44/1941 and
iv. the judgment of Ademola, Ag. Judge in Suit W/3/1949, said at page 214 line 9 and page 214 line 2 as follows:
“In view of these unimpeachable recurring findings by the Courts of Competent jurisdiction, there can be no question that the Agbassa, including the Igbudu are customary tenants of the first claimants (that is, the itsekiri Communal Land Trustees). Their tenure of the land occupied by them is therefore subject to the incident of customary tenancy. It is foolhardy on the part of the second claimants (that is, Chief Sam Warri Essi for himself and on behalf of the Igbudu people) in the face of such overwhelming evidence and the findings of successive courts throughout the years to seek from time to time as soon as there is notice of acquisition and the prospects of a windfall like manna from heaven to re-litigate issues which have been clearly determined and laid to rest against them by persisting in the groundless assertion that the people of Agbassa are the absolute owners of the land in dispute which has been conclusively established as forming the land the subject matter of suit No. 25 of 1926” (Italics by us).
32. CASE 6: THE IJAW FUTILE ATTEMPT TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF WARRI TOWNSHIP IN WARRI SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
Another case of most considerable importance was the action in Suit No. W/148/56 taken by Chief Izuokumo Olioki and others (for themselves and on behalf of the Ogbe-Ijoh people) vs. Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees & Anor.
33. In the action, the Ijaws, not without the prompting of the Urhobos, claimed a declaration of title to most of the lands in Warri township in Warri South Local Government Area, which had earlier on been adjudged as belonging to the Itsekiri in the celebrated case of OMETA VS. DORE NUMA already cited and referred to above.
34. After much of the legal arguments and seeing the futility of their actions, the plaintiffs, that is, the Ijaws, eventually decided to discontinue the Suit, and Rhodes Vivour J. delivered a judgment part of which reads as follows:
“On the 9/7/645, this Court delivered its Ruling refusing the Plaintiffs’ application to discontinue after the trial date had been fixed to the knowledge of the parties. The Plaintiffs have now asked for leave to discontinue under Order 28 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules Cap. 44 Laws of Western Nigeria 1959. The Plaintiffs are hereby precluded from bringing any further actions or action against any or either of the 1st and 2nd defendants in respect of the claims of which specific particulars were given in the Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and amended statement of claim in this action. Leave is accordingly granted the plaintiffs to discontinue this action.”
35. For the Ijaws, this judgment completely foreclosed their claim to any inch of land in Warri South Local Government Area.
36. As the Ijaw people were aggrieved by this order which forever barred them from re-opening this case against the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees, they appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 24th April 1967, with Sir Lionel Brett Ag. C.J. presiding, summarily dismissed the appeal in Suit No. SC/450/65. So the Ijaws of Ogbe-Ijoh should never be heard to say anything about ownership of Ogbe-Ijoh lands, or any lands in Warri South Local Government Area again.
37. Indeed the Leases of 1906, 1908 and 1911, which were the subject of litigations between the Urhobos and the Ijaws over Warri township in Warri South Local Government Area, were released by the colonial authority to the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees vide a Deed of Assignment dated 15th day of December, 1959 between Sir John D. Rankine, the Governor of Western Region of Nigeria and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees registered as No. 45 at page 45 in Volume 313 of the Lands Registry in the Office at Ibadan now kept in the Lands Registry, Asaba.
38. THE OKUMAGBA LAND CASE IN WARRI SOUTH LGA:
The only case which the Urhobo now seek refuge in their futile claim of ownership of Warri is the Okumagba land case. The Urhobo having lost out in the case of Ometa vs. Chief Dore Numa, now resort to the Okumagba Land Case as their proof of ownership of Warri.
39. In 1968 came Suit No. W/48/68: D. O. Idundun and others vs. Daniel Okumagba, now popularly known as the Okumagba Land case. They now see this case as a bridehead to launch their fake claim to Warri. This case terminated at the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC/309/74. It was mainly between Idundun & ors (for themselves and on behalf of the Ogisi family of Okere – Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of Olodi, Oki and Ighogbadu families of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri). The case was not between the Itsekiri and the Urhobo, rather it was an action between two (2) families in Okere. Idimisobo is an Itsekiri word meaning Urhobo quarter. Idimisobo is a quarter in Okere. This group belongs to the other stock of Urhobo in Warri referred to in paragraph 14 above. The land in dispute was a mere 281.1 acres of land situated in otherwise undeveloped part of Okere in Warri, which was not part of Warri metropolis until recent urbanization. It is the mere 281.1acres of land litigated in the case that was made two (2) wards (Okumagba I & II) in the INEC illegal twelve (12) wards creation nullified by the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/B/109/97: Dr. Joseph Otumara & ors vs. Independent National Electoral Commission.
40. The Warri metropolis whose nucleus was the leases of 1906, 1908 and 1911 granted by Dore Numa on behalf of the Itsekiri people to the colonial masters was the subject matter of litigation in Ometa vs. Dore Numa settled in favour of the Itsekiri.
41. THE IJAW SETTLERS IN WARRI SOUTH WEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
The Ijaw settlers in Warri South West Local Government Area are found within the settlements which are known as Isaba, Ogbe-Ijoh and Gbaramatu. Their principal occupations are fishing and canoe carving. Like their counterparts, (the Urhobo settlers in Warri Federal Constituency) they are customary tenants of the Itsekiri, and issues which has been settled for all times by the Courts of Law as shown hereunder.
42. THE PEOPLE OF OGBE-IJOH IN WARRI SOUTH WEST LGA:
In 1928, Chief Apoh (Itsekiri) sued Perememighan (Ijaw) of Ogbe-Ijoh claiming ownership, under the Olu of Warri, of Arutieghan Creek together with all the surrounding lands. The Warri Native Court which found in favour of Apoh (Itsekiri) significantly had, as a member, one Chief Buluku (Ijaw of Kiagbodo). Then in 1938, the same Chief Apoh and Chief Okotie, Itsekiri Chiefs of Irigbo in Ode-Itsekiri, sued the Pere, the head of the Saba community in Ogbe-Ijoh area claiming an injunction restraining the Ijaws of the area from fishing in certain rivers and using lands described as Ofulu, Utonileme, Utongboro, Krokoto etc., being Itsekiri rivers and lands.
43. While not disputing the claim of the Itsekiris, the Pere maintained that as Pere he was entitled to fish on the rivers without paying tributes. The Court found inter alia:
“… The Court will not make an order to eject the defendant from using the rivers and lands but an Order will be made retraining the defendant from using the rivers unless with the special and unanimous permission of the plaintiffs to whom the Olu has vested occupancy rights.
Defendants used to fish over the areas with plaintiffs’ permission. This system must continue”.
44. CASE 8:
In Suit No. W/116/56: Eyin Pessu, Akowe Apoh (Itsekiris) and the Olu of Warri versus Brigbo and others (Ijaws), Justice Obaseki found in favour of the Itsekiris in the case of declaration of title over Aruteghan Creek together with all the surrounding lands. The learned judge held:
“It is clear from the evidence before me that the friendly intercourse between the Itsekiris and Ijaws extends backwards over very many generations. With regard to the case put up by 8th and 9th defendants, I find that I cannot accept the traditional evidence given by the 8th defendant and his witness as true. I think it is a deliberate fabrication to deny plaintiffs’ title (1) to the land, and (2) right to put tenants on the land and creek in dispute.
It is a matter of regret that the title which 8th defendant’s grandfather Numa (Ijaw of Ogbe-Ijoh), never disputed is now being disputed by 8th defendant, Torowei Numa. It is only the title which a father has that he passes on to his son. It is clear from the past cases that Numa was only averse to the idea of money rent payment. He acknowledged that the title of ownership resided in the Olu (Olu of Warri) and that he gave part of his catch of fishes to the Olu’s son, Egbagbe”. (words in bracket supplied for clarity)
45. Finding the plaintiffs’ case proved, Justice Obaseki entered judgment in respect of the declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs as follows: -
“The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs (Itsekiris) are however entitled to a declaration of possessory title to the land, excluding streams and watercourses including Aruteghan creek, described in Ex. “A”. The 3rd plaintiff (Olu of Warri) is entitled to the radical title of the land.” (Words in brackets ours).
46. The defendants who were dissatisfies with the judgment went on appeal to the Supreme Court and eventually lost. By the judgment, the dispute about ownership of the entire area of land which extends from Aruteghan near Ode-Itsekiri to the boundary of Warri Federal Constituency near Burutu was brought to a close. It is now legally recognized that the whole area is the property of Irigbo people (Itsekiris) under the overlordship of the Olu of Warri.
47. CASE 9: GBARAMATU IJAW IN WARRI SOUTH WEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
In Suit No. W/20/46, Adurumokumor (Ijaw) acting for himself and on behalf of Bakokodia Ijaw Community took action against Kponu (Itsekiri) of Omadino for a declaration of title to the land described as Bakokodia.
48. The true position is that the Ijaw inhabitants of Bakokodia in Gbaramatu and its environs came from Western Ijaw and were permitted by Chanomi Iye on the authority of Omadino people to settle there. Ademola J. dismissed Adurumokumor’s action on the ground that the people of Bakokodia had failed to prove their title to the land claimed by them. As the Ijaws persisted in demanding tributes and rents from those using the land and fishing in the rivers, Omadino people, represented by Chief Sillo and Edremoda Golly, sued Adurumokumor on behalf of Bakokodia people in Suit No. W/20/46 in Warri High Court and successfully obtained a declaration of title over Bakokodia and the surrounding lands and rivers. The court awarded damages for trespass against the Ijaws who, according to the Judge, were put on the land by Omadino people who acknowledge the overlordship rights of the Olu of Warri. The Ijaws went to the West African Court of Appeal and lost.
49. CASE 10:
After this, the Ijaws continued to disregard the above judgments, and Omadino people sued them for an order of forfeiture at the Warri High Court. Ultimately at the Supreme Court the Ijaws accepted a compromise judgment in which they clearly acknowledged Omadino’s ownership of the land. See Suits Nos. W/29/51, and WACA No. 3707, W/37/61 and SC/393/64.
50. CASE 11:
Okenrenghigho (now wrongly called Okerenkoko that host the Maritime University), another Ijaw settlement in Gbaramatu also fell under the axe of the Omadino people. In Suit No. W/30/62: Chief Sillo (Itsekiri) vs. James Uluba (Ijaw), Justice Obaseki held that the Ijaws of Okenrenghigho are tenants of Omadino. The Ijaws then appealed to the Supreme Court presided over by Elias, C.J., Sowewimo and Ibekwe S.C. JJ. in Suit No. SC/37/1973. They lost. The effect of these judgments is that the whole of Gbaramatu area is peopled by Ijaws who are customary tenants on lands owned by Omadino people under the overlordship of the Olu of Warri.
51. IJAWS IN WARRI NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
The Egbeoma are the only Ijaw stock in Warri North Local Government Area. Significantly, the Ijaws of Egbeoma have never seriously disputed the fact that they are customary tenants of the Itsekiris and so, with them, life has been relatively peaceful.
52. In conclusion, therefore, one can say that it is an incontrovertible fact that the Ijaws in Warri South West and Warri North Local Government Areas of Ogbe-Ijoh, Gbaramatu and Egbeoma in the Warri Federal Constituency have no legal claims to the lands they are settling on. They are purely and simply, customary tenants of the Itsekiris in Warri Federal Constituency. It must be clearly stated that there is no Ijaw settlement in Warri South Local Government Area.
53. A look through the cases referred to above shows that distinguished expatriate and Nigerian judges adjudicated on them. They cannot all be wrong and unfair as recent publications and petitions would want to instill into the minds of the authorities and the general public. While they want the Supreme Court judgment obeyed in SC/413/2009 with regard to the delineation of the Warri Federal Constituency, they ignored the same courts’ judgment on their status as customary tenants of the Itsekiri. What a contradiction? INEC is a creation of law and is bound to obey all courts’ judgments. It cannot choose and pick which judgment to obey or ignore.
54. ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION IN WARRI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY
The last population census conducted in Nigeria which shows ethnic classification/distribution was the 1963 Census. The census for the then Warri Division (now Warri Federal Constituency) shows the ethnic demographic distribution as follows:
Ethnic Group Population % of Total
Itsekiri 92,711 64
Ijaw in 3 enclaves (Ogbe-Ijoh,
Gbaramatu & Egbeoma) 20,702 14.3
Urhobo of Agbassa 2,000 1.4
Others Urhobo, Edo, etc 29,167 20.1
145,060 100
Source: 1963 Census, Warri
1996 Census Figures (no ethnic classification)
Warri North 137,300
Warri South 303,417
Warri South West 116,681
Source: Warri South LGA
55. The above situation notwithstanding, we the Itsekiris have always tried to live in harmony and accommodate settlers in our homeland. In the earlier delineation of wards in the 3-Warri Local Government Areas before the INEC illegal re-delineation of the wards in Warri South in 1998, the following were the wards and demographic distribution/allocation:
a) Warri South Local Government Area:
i. Ode Itsekiri Ward - Itsekiri
ii Ubeji Ward - Itsekiri
iii. Obodo Ward - Itsekiri
iv. Ekurede Ward - Itsekiri
v. Esisi Ward - Itsekiri
vi. Okere Ward - Itsekiri
vii. Pessu Ward - Itsekiri
viii. Igbudu Ward - Urhobo
ix. Avenue Ward - Urhobo
x. Bowen Ward - Itsekiri
b) Warri North Local Government Area:
i. Ogheye Ward - Itsekiri
ii Gbokoda Ward - Itsekiri
iii. Ebrohimi Ward - Itsekiri
iv. Eghoro Ward - Itsekiri
v. Koko Ward - Itsekiri
vi. Abigborodo Ward - Itsekiri
vii. Opuama Ward - Ijaw
viii. Tsekelewu Ward - Ijaw
ix. Ogbinbiri Ward - Ijaw
x. Ogbudugbudu Ward - Ijaw
c) Warri South West Local Government Area:
i. Ogbe-Ijaw Ward 1 - Ijaw
ii Isaba Ward 2 - Ijaw
iii. Opuraza Ward 3 - Ijaw
iv. Gbaramatu Ward 4 - Ijaw
v. Ugborodo Ward 5 - Itsekiri
vi. Ajudaibo Ward 6 - Itsekiri
vii. Madangho Ward 7 - Itsekiri
viii. Orere Ward 8 - Itsekiri
ix. Akpakpa Ward 9 - Itsekiri
x. Ogidigben Ward 10 - Itsekiri
56. In the purported re-delineation of the then ten (10) existing electoral wards of Warri South Local Government Area into twelve (12), some existing wards like Esisi, Ubeji, Avenue ceased to exist and new electoral wards like Okumagba I and Okumagba II, Edjeba, G.R.A., Ogunu/Ekurede Itsekiri, Obodo/Omadino were created. Existing electoral wards like Ubeji was merged and made part of Obodo Ward while the existing Esisi Ward was torn into two (2) – G.R.A. & Edjeba. Also, existing Avenue Ward was torn into two (2) wards called Okumagba I & Okumagba II Wards. The truth is that the merged electoral wards of Ubeji and Obodo are Itsekiri dominated areas while the wards that were split like Avenue Ward (torn into Okumagba I & Okumagba II Wards) are areas predominated by Urhobo.
Front page of the document acknowledged by INEC
57. The Federal High Court in the said Suit No. FHC/B/109/97 nullified the purported twelve (12) electoral wards structure for Warri South Local Government Area in the following words:
“I have gone through all the subsequent Electoral Laws; no where it was stated that the provisions, with regard to the period of delineation has been reduced from 10 to 6 years. Rather all the relevant Laws made 10 years to be the limit. The exercise done by INEC in 1998, is therefore contrary to the provisions of the Local Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree of 1989, which was the applicable law, when the cause of action arose. It was also done in flagrant disobedience to the Order of interlocutory injunction granted by Justice D. D. Abutu, on the 14/4/97, which clearly prohibited the 1st Defendant from going ahead with the exercise. The exercise therefore is illegal, null and void and has no effect whatsoever.
This is the Order of the Court.”
58. The appeal against the decision to the Court of Appeal was struck out on 28th October, 2003 for lack of diligent prosecution. There is no further appeal against the order. The judgment is therefore final.
59. The Warri crisis started in 1997 following the creation of Warri South West Local Government Area. It was an ethnic crisis which started between the Ijaws and Itsekiri, but later became an overlapping crisis between Itsekiri & Urhobo and Ijaw & Itsekiri – with both Ijaw and Urhobo joining forces against the Itsekiri. The Ijaw (who have three (3) other Local Government Areas outside Warri Federal Constituency) and Urhobo (with eight (8) other Local Government Areas outside Warri Federal Constituency) being larger in size got the support of their kit and kin outside Warri and Delta State. Over seventy (70) Itsekiri villages and towns were burnt down and ransacked with people displaced. It was a genocidal war to exterminate the Itsekiri from the surface of the earth.
60. While Itsekiri were defending themselves, as the government failed to protect their lives and properties, the Urhobo, who were minority in Warri South Local Government Area, with the support of their larger Urhobo brothers, infiltrated INEC and took the opportunity of the general climate of impunity by mischievously gerrymandering illegal wards delineation in favour of the Urhobo ethnic nationality in Warri South Local Government Area. This led to the illegal twelve (12) wards creation which was done to falsely boost Urhobo wards and reduce that of the Itsekiri – all this was in pursuit of the extermination of the Itsekiri from their homeland.
61. Prior to the advent of the 4th Republic in 1999, Warri had two (2) Federal Constituencies, based on its population and voters strength, in the Federal House of Representatives to wit: Warri South & Warri North Federal Constituencies, represented by Late Messrs. Sunny Dabor & Vincent Jemide respectively, on the platform of the Social Democratic Party (SDP). This was however skewed during the 1999 transition when an Ijaw person from Burutu Local Government Area who was a prominent figure in the Abacha Transition Committee manipulated the process to give Burutu, a rural Ijaw community, with less population and registered voters, two (2) Federal Constituencies i.e. Burutu & Bomadi/Patani, while the two (2) Warri Federal Constituencies was reduced to one (1). That injustice is still there till today. Now they want to take the only one (1) left in Warri Federal Constituency, the Itsekiri homeland in connivance with the Urhobo. From 1999 till date, the Itsekiri had never produced a senator despite our contribution to the national wealth.
62. OUR DEMAND
We demand, Mr. Chairman, based on our case as stated above the followings:
i. That INEC carry on the exercise in Warri South Local Government Area based on the ten (10) wards structure as ordered by the Federal High Court decision in Suit No. FHC/B/109/97: Dr. Joseph Otumara & ors vs. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in line with the current guidelines & templates, the Electoral Act 2022 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) .
ii. That INEC should recognize the existing legal wards in all the three (3) Local Government Areas and multiply same on equal basis. As it is the safest route for justice to be seen to have been done.
63. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman Sir, we would like to say that we Itsekiris are peace-loving and law-abiding people. We have no territorial ambitions whatsoever, and do not seek to lord it over any ethnic group anywhere. Nonetheless, we will constitutionally resist any affront from anywhere to our social and traditional institutions and/or any attempt by our neighbours as it were, to undermine our very existence or stampede Government by blindfolding and deliberately distorting facts to deprive us of our legal and inalienable rights.
64. We sincerely implore you treat this request with utmost fairness and unflinching sense of justice, as doing otherwise will have no basis for justification. We strongly hope we can always count on your integrity, uprightness, honour and commitment to using your position to protecting minority interest and rights to see that our position is upheld.
Signed for and on behalf of the Committee of
the Itsekiri Leaders of Thought
CHIEF EDWARD O. EKPOKO
Chairman
SIR A. S. MENE
Secretary
Cc:
1. The Delta State Resident Electoral Commissioner,
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC),
NTA Road, Off Okpamam Road,
Asaba.
2. The Supervisor,
INEC Wards Delineation Exercise in the
Warri Federal Constituency.
Copyright: Fresh Angle International (www.freshangleng.com)
ISSN 2354 - 4104
Sponsored Ad
Our strategic editorial policy of promoting journalism, anchored on the tripod of originality, speed and efficiency, would be further enhanced with your financial support.
Your kind contribution, to our desire to become a big global brand, should be credited to our account:
Fresh Angle Nig. Ltd
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0130931842.
BANK GTB.
×
![]()