11th April, 2025.
Sam Olumekun, MNI
National Commissioner and Chairman,
Information & Voter Education Committee,
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC),
INEC-Headquarters,
Plot 436, Zambezi Crescent,
Maitama District,
Abuja,
Federal Capital Territory.
Honourable Commissioner Sir,
IN RE:
MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSED DELINEATION OF WORDS IN THE WARRI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY BY THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT: THE SUBMISSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF ITSEKIRI ETHIC EXTRACTION
The above subject matter refers.
We have the instructions of the Focus Persons, Leaders and People of Itsekiri ethnic extraction in Warri Federal Constituency to make this initial submission subject to our clients doing a supplementary submission with more particulars subsequently.
The attention of our clients has been drawn to a media publication as above titled and dated the 10th day of April, 2025 under the hand and seal of your good offices; a copy of which said publication our clients forwarded to us with instructions to do your good offices a befitting reply as herein contained. Please, kindly find a copy of the said publication attached herewith and marked Annexure “AA” for the ease of reference and avoidance of doubts.
Accordingly, we act upon the instructions of our clients to make the following initial submissions and observations in the circumstances:
1.0 INTRODUCTION:
1.1 By way of introductory remarks, may we humbly indicate very swiftly, our clients’ instruction to inform your good offices of the brewing threats to regional security, safety of human lives and property including oil facilities in the region arising from the procedures, occasioned by the means and strategy deployed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the delineation of Warri Federal Constituency which as you would presently find, is completely at variance with the spirit and intent of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and the guidelines and Manuals of INEC on its mandate as per its neutrality and independence.
1.2 The said threats are occasioned by the proposal by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the delineation of Warri Federal Constituency of as conceived on the 4th day of April 2025 which is in reality a disguised execution of a pogrom against the people of Itsekiri Ethnic Nationality vide the forceful annexation of Itsekiri territories, reversal of court judgments favourable to the Itsekiri people, alteration of well-established historical land ownership records and the illegal creation of communities for the Ijaws and Urhobos in Itsekiri territories.
1.3 We have been fully briefed by our clients of the facts of this matter and our clients’ submissions and observations on the report is as hereunder contained subject to the right of our clients to supply further particulars as may be required in the circumstances:
1.4 That our clients have watched with keen interest and rapt attention, the events leading to the highly inflammatory proposal of 4th April, 2025; surreptitiously packaged by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for Warri Federal Constituency and hereby express our clients’ uttermost dismay and chagrin over how increasingly the Commission is failing in its responsibility to be independent and neutral; notwithstanding the fact that it has handy, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and well as a Manual to keep the Commission on track.
1.5 That our clients hereby vehemently express their deepest disappointment, dissatisfaction and absolute rejection of the entire exercise of delimitation/delineation; including the procedure and process of the Professor Rhoda Gumus and Mr. Joseph Elemson led Committee of INEC for being truly what we suspected and complained to INEC that it would be; a disguised execution of a well-orchestrated pogrom agenda against the people of Itsekiri Ethnic Nationality.
1.6 That our clients have observed and as we shall presently demonstrate; and as a perusal of the said proposal would also reveal; the said proposal reeks of multiple cases of forceful annexation of Itsekiri territories, reversal of court judgments that are favourable to the Itsekiri people, alteration of the well-established historical land ownership records, the illegal creation of communities for the Ijaws and the Urhobos within Itsekiri territories, just to mention but a few of the inhibiting vices.
2.0 SUMMARY OF THE CASE AGAINST THE ENTIRE EXERCISE:
The entire exercise as we shall presently demonstrate, is incurably defective and grossly incompetent both as per the procedure and process as well as technical content and form.
2.1 A perusal of the said proposal would as aforesaid, reveal that it reeks of multiple cases of forceful annexation of Itsekiri territories, reversal of court judgments that are favourable to the Itsekiri people, alteration of the well-established historical land ownership records and the illegal creation of communities for the Ijaws and the Urhobos within Itsekiri territories.
To place our client’s submission in proper perspective, it may be imperative to present the extant submissions and observations by identifying the relevant issues and treating them seriatim as follows:
a. On the establishment, constitution and inauguration of the Committee to execute the exercise:
2.2 Our clients woke up to the rude shock of the fact that on or about 12th March, 2024, for the purpose of the establishment, constitution and inauguration of the Committee to execute the delineation exercise, the INEC National Chairman met with the leaders of the Ijaws and Urhobos from Warri Federal Constituency of Delta State at the INEC headquarters in Abuja. The significance of this is certainly too deep to glide over considering the provisions of Section 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. Kindly see the bundle of photographs, Annexure “BB” attached herewith.
2.3 As it turned out, the reason for the unlawful exclusion of the Itsekiri people that constitute the overwhelming majority of the voters in Warri Federal Constituency by virtue of INEC records may not have been unconnected with the preconceived intention and desperation to rig the whole exercise. The following facts are in this light worthy of isolation:
a. The scripted Chairman of the Committee, Professor Rhoda Gumus is a leading Ijaw leader of thought.
b. Mr. Joseph Elemson is another leading Ijaw leader of thoughts and he was placed in charge of field operations of the entire delimitation/re-delineation team. He was/is to give instructions and every other person was/is to report to Professor Rhoda Gumus.
2.4 Beside the fact that the above script would never have been so written had the Itsekiris not been illegally excluded as aforesaid, none of the other stakeholders would have ever accepted two Itsekiri persons driving such a process. What happened to the sense of natural justice here? Could it have deadened by inducement? Most likely.
There may be a need for the relevant financial investigation agencies to investigate widespread allegations of financial inducement that characterized the exercise in the circumstances.
2.5 The above suspicion is heightened by the fact that despite all appeals and protestations by leaders, stakeholders and people of Itsekiri ethnic nationality to INEC on the above dislocation of one of the pillars of justice, INEC has refused and/or failed and neglected to listen to, consider or look into the pleas and complaints or make any amend/adjustment to reflect a fair, rational and unbiased constitution of the delimitation/re-delineation team.
2.6 The obvious implication of the above development is not far-fetched. By the above exclusion of the Isekiri people, the principle of fair hearing, “Audi alteram partem” a Latin phrase meaning "listen to the other side" or "hear the other”, was denied the Itsekiris.
2.7 In the same vein, having the above-named Ijaw national leaders of thought chair and superintend the Committee constitute another fundamental infraction of the right of Itsekiri people to a fair hearing, rendered in the Latin maxim; “Nemo judex in causa sua, a Latin phrase meaning “No man shall be Judge in his own cause or the deciding authority must be impartial and without bias”.
2.8 With both pillars of justice dislocated, the eventual outcome was inevitable; the complete travesty of justice that was called a proposal.
b. On the protests and legal actions by the people of Itsekiri ethnic nationality over their illegal exclusion and the appointment of Ijaw National Leaders as the Head and Supervisor respectively of the Delineation Committee
Were the people of Itsekiri quiet in the face of the above infringement and/or likely infringement of their fundamental rights? No, they were not!
2.9 Beyond the multiple protests against the appointment of Ijaw National Leaders as the Head and Supervisor respectively of the Delineation Committee, the Itsekiri people instituted an action in court against INEC.
2.10 As for the said illegal exclusion, a definite petition was lodged with the Commission. May we refer to Annexure “CC” attached herewith for which reason the INEC Chairman in anger cowed to permit any meeting with the representatives of the Itsekiri people for protesting the above infringement of their fundamental rights. The INEC Chairman ensured that the Itsekiri representatives were limited only to the inferior decision making office of the Delta State Resident Electoral Commission and its subordinates; never was audience granted them the Itsekiri representatives by the National Chairman even till date; despite multiple applications for the opportunity for a meeting by the Itsekiri representatives.
c. On INEC’s Refusal to honour collective resolutions on the judgment of the court of appeal in favour of the Itsekiri people.
For over 21 years, beginning from 2003, there was the judgment in Suit No. FHC/B/109/97 – Dr. Joseph Otumara & 8 Ors. v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 4 Ors in favour of the Itsekiri people on the Ward structure and number in Warri South Local Government Area which said judgment declared 12 Wards illegal and 10 Wards legal. Up till date, INEC never implemented that judgment.
2.11 At the appropriate time, we shall deal with the issue of the breach of professional ethics involving some lawyers who knowing that there was a subsisting judgment on the matter, surreptitiously instituted the suit leading to the judgment (2022) now sought to be enforced without making the Itsekiri people who were the initial judgment creditor parties. That would be an issue for another day.
2.12 Sequel to complaining about the unlawful exclusion of the Itsekiri people in the above circumstances, the people also sought to give life to their own judgment which was earlier in time and distinct from the one now sought to be enforced and INEC and all the stakeholders agreed by resolution that both judgments would be enforced together. The said resolution is as contained in Annexure “DD” attached herewith attached, a document of INEC duly signed by all the stakeholders. Ironically this was the only unanimous point of agreement at the meeting in Asaba, Delta State of Nigeria; however, it was never implemented.
d. On INEC’s Refusal to respect judicial processes particularly with regards to the conduct of the event of the 4th day of April, 2025
2.13 INEC was aware at the material time, that there was and remains not just a pending appeal on the subject matter of the said event it proposed and conducted on the 4th of April, 2025, but that there is in fact, a Motion on Notice duly filed before the Court to the knowledge of INEC, seeking a stay of actions regarding the said event in particular and associated activities in general. The said court processes already served on the parties were served on INEC in particular, on the 2nd day of April, 2025 in this regard. This was two clear days before the event. Attached herewith and marked as Annexure “EE” is a copy of the affidavit of service deposed to by the Bailiff of the Court of Appeal in proof of this fact.
2.14 We have no doubts in our minds that INEC knew that the said event of 4th day of April, 2025 does not only constitute disrespect for the Court but certainly now presents the Court with a fait accompli; a situation where a party knowing of the existence of an action to restrain it from doing an act pending before court yet proceeds to doing that act. In the case of EFFIOM v. IRONBAR (2000) 3 NWLR (650) 545 at 563 the Court of Appeal per Opene JCA sturdily admonished as follows:
“The Court will not allow either of the parties to present it with a fait accompli. It is therefore the duty of the court to see that its orders are not rendered nugatory. When therefore the conduct of one of the parties has the tendency of foisting on the court a fait accompli, the court may make an order which will have the effect of returning the parties to the original status quo pending the determination of the suit.”
2.15 It is our hope that INEC is familiar with the constitutional provisions (Section 36 (1), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended) on the above-mentioned principle of fair hearing which for the sake of emphasis we reproduce hereunder:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”
2.16 There is no gainsaying the fact that INEC is an authority of government obligated by the said statute to guarantee that it operates; “in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”. We are also fortified in the extant point of objection by the relevant provisions of the guidelines of INEC as contained in its Manual in this respect.
e. The contradictions in the proposal of the 4th day of April, 2025 clandestinely packaged by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for Warri Federal Constituency
2.17 It is apparent that the INEC Chairman appears from the above facts to be much in a hurry as his tenure is about to expire, to deliver on the profane assignment given to it by the other stakeholders that he has completely disregarded the above-mentioned statutes and guidelines.
2.18 Beyond the aforesaid likelihood of bias protested by our people against the appointment of an Ijaw Professor heading the Delineation Committee and a Senior Ijaw man appointed as the operating field officer against the rule of natural justice some aspects of the said proposal that clearly manifest the bias of the Ijaw composed INEC Committee are as follows:
a. The said proposal is in fact the cancellation of names of existing Itsekiri communities and their replacement with names of Ijaw communities; in most cases against the Supreme Court judgments for example as far as Warri South-West is concerned:
i. In the list of communities proposed by the Committee as part of the said proposal for Warri South-West Local Government Area, listed as RA14, the existing community that was determined by the Supreme Court to be Okerenghigho and not Okerenkoko was by the said proposal reversed to Okenrekoko.
ii. The decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in James Uluba & Ors vs Chief E. E. Sillo & Ors (1972) ALL NLR 2nd Edition Volume 1 Page 53 in terms of the name “Okerenghigho” versus “Okerenkoko” which is a dispute that arose therein and was considered and decided upon by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in favour of the name “Okerenghigho”. The said suit was prosecuted by the Itsekiris against the Ijaws.
iii. Worthy of note is the decision of the Lower Court which was also in favour of the Itsekiris as recorded in the said Supreme Court judgment at page 59 is as follows:
“The learned trial judge finally reached the following conclusion- the evidence of the Plaintiffs and their witnesses as to the founding of Okenrenghigho before me in this case is more credible than the Defendants' evidence and leads me to the conclusion that Okenrenghigho or Okenghigho was founded by the Plaintiffs' ancestors and that the original ancestor of the Defendants by name Akpata and his followers settled on the land with the permission of the Plaintiffs' ancestors. And I find that he accepted his position as their customary tenant. This I so find.”
iv. The appeal to the Supreme Court was to challenge the above finding of the lower court. Conclusively, the Supreme Court held at page 66 of its judgment thus:
“We will accordingly dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment of Obaseki, J., in the High Court, Warri, in Suit No. W/30/1962 delivered on October 3, 1969…". We award costs assessed at N125 to the Respondents in this appeal”
v. The said proposal is in fact the cancellation of names of existing Itsekiri communities and their replacement with names of Ijaw communities; in most cases against Supreme Court judgments for example as far as Warri South-West is concerned:
b. The decision of the High Court of Justice in Suit No: W/277/2012: Chief E.F. Esisi & 10 Ors vs. The Governor of Delta State & 5 Ors where the Honourable Court referred extensively to the decision of R.W. Rhodes-Vivour J. sitting in Warri High Court in Suit No. W/148/56 before the Warri High Court between Chief Izoukumo Olioki & 5 Ors (for themselves and on behalf of the Ogbe-Ijoh people) Vs Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees and Chief Sam Warri Esi (for himself and on behalf of Agbassa and the Igbudu People) over the declaration of title to land in Warri including the areas now being claimed by the people of Ogbe-Ijoh of Warri; the relevant portion being as follows:
“On the 9/7/64, 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 are hereby precluded from bringing any further actions 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”
c. The above action then instituted on the same subject matter covering the ownership of the areas listed in RA 02, RA 07 & AR12. The claim of the Ijaws for the said areas was struck out by the Honourable Court following a line of decisions. The names now proposed to be given to the said areas are Ijaw names in place of their existing Itsekiri names to give the impression that they are owned by the Ijaws; another way to circumvent the judicial processes in this direction.
d. Again, with the support of top Ijaw Leaders, the Ama Okosu of Ogbe-Ijoh had conceived a plan to launch into Warri South Local Government Area with a view to establishing an Ijaw Kingdom called Ogbe-Ijoh Kingdom of Warri South. They instituted the suit initially against only the Local Government Council and the State but when the Isekiri people raised an objection the suit was struck out prior to 2020.
e. Sequel to the above development, the Ijaws instituted W/147/2020 Between: W/147/2020 HRM Amaokosu Mobene Vs. The Executive Governor Delta State & 5 Ors by which the Ama-Okosu of Ogbe-Ijoh claimed to be entitled to royalties in Warri South Local Government Area. After 4 years of intense legal tussle, the suit was struck out for being incompetent and lacking in merit. The judgment was eventually delivered on the 26th day of March, 2024 in favour of the Itsekiris.
Consequently, and without prejudice to our clients’ right to raise further objections over the technical absurdities that characterize the said exercise, we vehemently reject in its entirety, the INEC proposal for the delineation of Warri Federal Constituency of the 4th day of April 2025 on the ground that same is a product of an invalid exercise by reason of gross violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, INEC guidelines and a deliberate contempt of court.
Arising from the above developments, our clients are not at all confident that they would see justice with the current configuration of the Delineation Committee which our client pointed out from the onset was the very high risk of bias; the rationale behind INEC not permitting Resident Electoral Commissioners serving in their home state.
Our Clients have therefore instructed us as we hereby act, to observe in the circumstances that the said proposal constitutes a ticking time bomb; brewing threats to regional security, safety to human lives and property including oil facilities in the region; regard being had to the procedures, means and strategy deployed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the delineation of Warri Federal Constituency which as you would have found above, is completely at variance with the spirit and intent of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and the guidelines and Manuals of INEC on its mandate as per neutrality.
OUR PRAYERS:
The above facts adumbrated; it is our humble prayer:
1. That the Federal Government of Nigeria should set up an independent panel of inquiry to perform the following tasks:
a. Scrutinize the work of the Delineation Committee as per the procedure of the constitution and composition of the Committee to determine whether it was just and fair regard being had to the principle of natural justice.
b. Investigate the finances of the top officials of INEC and those of the members of the Committee to determine the allegation of financial inducement in the entire process.
c. Examine the proposal of the committee to determine whether said proposal is not in fact the cancellation of names of existing Itsekiri communities and their replacement with names of Ijaw communities; in most cases against Supreme Court judgments.
d. Inquire into the reason why over 21 years, beginning from 2003, there was the judgment in Suit No. FHC/B/109/97 – Mr. Joseph Otumara & 8 Ors. v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 4 Ors in favour of the Itsekiri people on the Ward structure and number in Warri South Local Government Area which declared 12 Wards illegal and 10 Wards legal which up till date INEC has never implemented that judgment.
e. Determine whether the Committee ought to have proceeded with the event of 4th day of April, 2025 when it has been served an application for an injunction restraining it from doing so.
2. That the proceedings of the said Committee be stayed in the meantime to allow for the execution of prayer 1 above.
We appreciate your timely intervention in this matter and hope that same is genuine and that the appropriate measures would be taken to address the issues raised above in the interest of the security of lives and property in the region.
Yours Faithfully,
Pp: Amuda-Kannike (SAN) & Co.
…………………………….
E Uwatse-Ayemobuwa, Mrs.
CC:
His Excellency,
Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu,
President and Commander in Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
Aso Rock Villa,
Abuja,
Federal Capital Territory.
His Excellency,
Distinguished Senator Godswill Akpabio,
The Senate President,
Federal Republic of Nigeria,
Three Arms Zone, Abuja,
Federal Capital Territory.
His Excellency,
The Honourable Speaker,
House of Representatives,
Federal Republic of Nigeria,
Three Arms Zone, Abuja,
Federal Capital Territory.
Honourable Attorney General of the Federation & Minister of Justice,
Hon. Attorney General’s Chambers
Federal Ministry of Justice,
Central Business District
Abuja,
Nigeria.
The National Security Adviser (NSA),
State House,
Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja.
The Inspector General of Police (IG),
Nigeria Police Force,
Force Headquarters,
Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja.
The Chairman,
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC),
Plot 301/302, Institution and Research Cadastral District,
Jabi,
Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja.
The Director General,
Department of State Services,
DSS HQ, 1 Maitama Avenue,
Abuja,
Federal Capital Territory.
The Commissioner of Police,
Nigeria Police Force,
Delta State Police Command,
Asaba,
Delta State.
The Director,
Department of State Services (DSS),
Warri South Local Government Area,
Warri.
The Area Commander,
Nigeria Police Force,
Warri Area Command,
Warri,
Delta State.
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.
×
![]()