Rejoinder to the Ijaw Stakeholders’ Statement on Warri Ownership by the Itsekiri Historical Front

We, the Itsekiri Historical Front, representing the Itsekiri people of Warri Kingdom, Delta State, issue this rejoinder to the misleading and provocative publication by the Ijaw Stakeholders of Warri Federal Constituency, dated July 10, 2025.

The statement, which responds to the Oodua People’s Congress (OPC), contains numerous distortions, historical inaccuracies, and baseless assertions that must be corrected to set the record straight.

The Itsekiri people, as the aboriginal and legal owners of Warri, backed by numerous court judgments, will not allow such revisionist claims to go unchallenged.

OPC’s Involvement and Locus Standi
While the Ijaw Stakeholders question the OPC’s involvement in Warri affairs, by OPC, as a Yoruba socio-cultural group with historical ties to the Itsekiri (through shared Yoruboid linguistic and cultural heritage), the OPC’s interest in protecting minority rights in the Niger Delta is understandable. Their statement does not negate the overwhelming legal and historical evidence supporting Itsekiri ownership of Warri. The Ijaw Stakeholders’ attempt to dismiss the OPC’s commentary as irrelevant is a distraction from addressing the substantive issues of Warri’s ownership, which have been settled by courts of competent jurisdiction.

INEC Delineation and Legal Context
The Ijaw Stakeholders claim that the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) delineation of wards in Warri was constitutional and inclusive. We strongly disagree. INEC’s delineation process, particularly in Warri South, has been contentious due to its failure to fully comply with court judgments that affirm the original 10-ward structure in Warri South Constituency. The Supreme Court in SC/413/2016 (2022) ordered INEC to review the ward delineation in Warri Federal Constituency, but it did not nullify prior judgments affirming the Itsekiri’s legal rights to Warri lands. INEC’s continued maintenance of an illegal 12-ward structure, as opposed to the court-ordered 10-ward structure, is a breach of constitutional provisions and court rulings, including FHC/B/109/97, where the Federal High Court ordered INEC to revert to the original 10 wards, a ruling upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The Itsekiri people, through leaders like Chief Robinson Ariyo, have consistently urged INEC to respect these judgments to avoid further marginalization of the Itsekiri in their ancestral homeland. The Ijaw Stakeholders’ claim of an “evidence-based” delineation ignores the legal precedence and historical context that affirm Itsekiri ownership.

Historical and Legal Ownership of Warri: Itsekiri Perspective
The Ijaw Stakeholders’ assertion that Ijaws are the original inhabitants of Warri South-West and Warri South is a gross distortion of history, unsupported by credible evidence. The Itsekiri people are the indigenous inhabitants of Warri, with their history dating back to the founding of the Warri Kingdom by Olu Ginuwa in the 15th century. This is well-documented in historical records and affirmed by numerous court judgments. The Ijaw claims to areas like Gbaramatu, Ogbe-Ijoh, Abiteye, Ijahala, and Kantu are baseless and have been consistently rejected by courts.
The Ijaw Stakeholders’ reliance on the Shell Petroleum Development Co. v. Chief Otoko & Ors (1990) case is misleading. This case addressed specific land rights in Gbaramatu but did not overturn the broader legal framework establishing Itsekiri overlordship over Warri lands. Below, we outline key court cases that affirm Itsekiri ownership of Warri, which the Ijaw Stakeholders conveniently ignore:
1. Ogegede v. Dore Numa (1925): The Agbassa Urhobo claimed rents for portions of land leased to the government by the Itsekiri. The Supreme Court of Nigeria dismissed the claim, finding no evidence to support Urhobo ownership, affirming Itsekiri rights.
2. Ometan v. Chief Dore Numa (1926): The Agbassa Urhobo sought a declaration of title over Warri lands. The court ruled that the Itsekiri, under the Olu of Warri, held overlordship, with Agbassa recognized as customary tenants. This was upheld on appeal to the Full Court (1931) and the Privy Council (1933).
3. Chief Apoh v. Perememighan (1928): The court affirmed Itsekiri ownership of Arutieghan Creek and surrounding lands, recognizing the Ijaws of Ogbe-Ijoh as customary tenants under the Olu of Warri.
4. Chief Apoh and Chief Okotie v. Pere (1938): The court granted Itsekiri possessory rights over disputed lands and rivers, allowing Ijaws to use them only with Itsekiri permission, affirming the Olu’s overlordship.
5. Suit W/116/56 (1956): Justice Obaseki granted the Itsekiri possessory title to Aruteghan Creek and surrounding lands, with the Olu of Warri holding radical title, recognizing Ijaws as customary tenants.
6. Suit W/148/56 (1956): Chief Isuokumo Oloiki and others (Ijaw) claimed ownership of large portions of Warri Division. The Ijaws withdrew their claim, and Justice Rhodes Vivour barred them from future claims against the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in SC/450/65 (1967).
7. Gbaramatu Cases (1946, 1962, 1973): In cases like W/20/46 and SC.37/1973, courts ruled that Ijaws in Gbaramatu were customary tenants under the Itsekiri, with the Olu of Warri holding radical title.
8. Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees v. Warri Divisional Planning Authority (SC.328/1972): The Supreme Court affirmed that the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees hold legal ownership of Warri lands, with communities like Agbassa occupying as customary tenants subject to good behavior.
9. Idudun v. Okumagba (SC/309/74): The Okumagba family (Urhobo) secured possessory rights to 281.1 acres along Okumagba Avenue, but the radical title remained with the Olu of Warri, as the defendants did not counterclaim for title.
10. Other Relevant Cases: Additional cases, including W/44/1941, W/3/1949, W/121/57, W/41/57, and SC.67/1971, consistently recognized the Itsekiri’s radical and possessory titles over Warri lands, with non-Itsekiri communities as customary tenants.
These judgments collectively establish that the Itsekiri, under the Olu of Warri, hold both radical and possessory titles to nearly all Warri lands, except for the 281.1 acres where the Okumagba family holds possessory rights. The Ijaw Stakeholders’ claims to Abiteye, Ijahala, and Kantu lack legal or historical backing, as no court has granted Ijaw ownership of these areas.

Refuting Historical Claims
The Ijaw Stakeholders’ reliance on colonial records and census data is selective and misleading. The 1908 Colonial Intelligence Report and the 1921/1952 censuses do not establish Ijaw ownership but merely note their presence as settlers in riverine areas. The Itsekiri, as the indigenous people of Warri, have maintained a continuous presence and governance structure through the Warri Kingdom, recognized by colonial authorities and affirmed by courts. The 1951 Western Region House of Assembly debates cited by the Ijaw Stakeholders are taken out of context and do not override court rulings that affirm Itsekiri overlordship.

The claim that Ijaws are the original inhabitants of Warri South-West and Warri South is a fabrication. Historical records show that the Itsekiri established the Warri Kingdom, with Ode-Itsekiri (Big Warri) as its capital, long before significant Ijaw settlement. The Ijaw presence in areas like Gbaramatu and Ogbe-Ijoh is as customary tenants, as confirmed by multiple court rulings.

On Shrines, Water, and Forests
The Ijaw Stakeholders’ defense of INEC’s delineation in riverine areas as accommodating “water-based” communities is a weak justification for ignoring legal precedents. While INEC’s guidelines allow for flexibility in riverine areas, the delineation must respect existing court judgments and the constitutional rights of indigenous groups like the Itsekiri. The creation of polling units in areas claimed as Ijaw territories disregards the legal status of these lands as Itsekiri-owned, with Ijaws as tenants. This risks further marginalizing the Itsekiri, who have already been politically disadvantaged despite their significant contributions to Nigeria’s oil and gas industry.

Allegations of Bribery and Marginalization
The Ijaw Stakeholders’ accusation that the Itsekiri or their allies are engaging in blackmail or bribery is baseless and inflammatory. The Itsekiri have relied on legal processes and court judgments to assert their rights, not manipulation. The claim that Ijaws were marginalized by the 1996 ward structure is ironic, given that the Itsekiri have been systematically underrepresented in Warri’s political structure despite their legal ownership of the land. The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling (SC/413/2016) was meant to correct these imbalances, not to enable further disenfranchisement of the Itsekiri.

Conclusion
The Ijaw Stakeholders’ statement is a deliberate attempt to distort history and undermine the legal rights of the Itsekiri people in Warri. The Itsekiri have consistently won court cases affirming their ownership of Warri lands, with the Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees recognized as the legal overlords. We urge INEC to comply with court judgments, particularly FHC/B/109/97 and SC/413/2016, by reverting to the original 10-ward structure in Warri South and respecting the Itsekiri’s constitutional and legal rights. We call for peace and dialogue but will not tolerate attempts to rewrite history or encroach on our ancestral homeland. The Itsekiri remain committed to equity, justice, and the rule of law, as articulated by His Majesty, Ogiame Atuwatse III.

Signed
Lily-white O. Esigbone (Chairman)
Mr. Silva Maku (Secretary)
Mr. Oritsegbubemi Edema (Historian)
Mr. Oritseweyiologbara Kwame (Public Relations Officer)
Itsekiri Historical Front

×