ITSEKIRI: BETWEEN CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, POLITICAL FRUSTRATION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL THE TRUTH

ITSEKIRI: BETWEEN CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, POLITICAL FRUSTRATION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL THE TRUTH

A RESPONSE TO EMIKO OGHOMIENOR'S OPEN LETTER TO HIS MAJESTY, OGIAME ATUWATSE III, CFR THE OLU OF WARRI

My attention has been drawn to the publication by one Mr Emiko Oghomienor titled "Itsekiri: Where Are We and Which Way?", in which he attempts to present himself as a concerned Itsekiri patriot while making several allegations against His Majesty, Ogiame Atuwatse III, CFR the Olu of Warri.

Let me state clearly from the outset that nobody, including the Olu of Warri, is above constructive criticism.

However, there is a fundamental difference between constructive criticism motivated by genuine concern for the Itsekiri Nation and a sustained campaign of personal attacks allegedly motivated by political disagreements, disappointed expectations and private grievances which is the reason for the recent outburst of Emiko Oghomienor.

The Itsekiri Nation is bigger than any individual, political officeholder, Chieftaincy title or personal interest. Our history must not be rewritten to accommodate the grievances of individuals, neither should the revered institution of the Olu of Warri be dragged into personal and political disagreements and personal gains that wasn't meant.

ITSEKIRI: WHERE ARE WE AND WHICH WAY?

Emiko Oghomienor’s open letter, titled *“Itsekiri: Where Are We and Which Way?”*, raises several issues concerning the reign of His Majesty Ogiame Atuwatse III, CFR the Olu of Warri. 

Some of these issues deserve discussion, but the manner in which they have been presented gives the impression that the challenges confronting the Itsekiri Nation began with the present Olu and that every unresolved matter and request for personal benefits that is not achieved is evidence of failure by the Palace.

That is neither a fair assessment of our history nor a balanced appraisal of the responsibilities of the Olu.

Constructive criticism is welcome in any society. However, criticism must be informed by history, facts and consistency. It must also distinguish between inherited challenges, ongoing institutional processes and matters that require collective action by the Itsekiri people.

The question is not simply where we are today, but how we got here, what was inherited, what has changed, and what must be done to move forward.

1. WHAT DID THE PRESENT REIGN INHERIT?

Before passing judgment on His Majesty Ogiame Atuwatse III, CFR the Olu of Warri it is necessary to examine the circumstances under which he ascended the throne.

His predecessor His Majesty Ogiame Ikenwoli I reigned from 2015 to 2020. His reign had its own achievements, but it also left behind unresolved issues and challenges that the present reign had to confront. These included the contentious Ward Delineation matter and the wider disagreements surrounding political representation and the boundaries of Itsekiri interests, also to mention the underdevelopment of our communities by those we have given the responsibility over the years.

The Ward Delineation controversy did not originate with Ogiame Atuwatse III. It was an existing matter that had developed for almost two decades and required careful handling. The issues surrounding the recognition of other Kingdoms within Warri Kingdom e.g the Ovie of Agbarah as a co-King in Warri South, and the implications of that development for Itsekiri traditional and political interests, also belong to the history that must be examined when assessing the transition between reigns.

It is therefore misleading to present these complicated matters as though they were created by the current Olu, I see it as a cheap Blackmail to get attention. 

A fair assessment must ask: What was the position when Ogiame Ikenwoli left the throne? What decisions had already been taken? What legal, political and traditional complications remained? And what options were realistically available to his successor?

One cannot fairly assess a successor without first examining the circumstances inherited from the predecessor.

2. WHAT HAS OGIAME ATUWATSE III DONE?

It is legitimate to ask what Ogiame Atuwatse III has achieved since ascending the throne. No reign should be beyond scrutiny. But such an assessment must be based on the totality of the work of the Palace, rather than on a selection of controversies or on expectations and grains that no traditional ruler could satisfy single-handedly.

The Olu is the foremost traditional institution of the Itsekiri people. His responsibilities include preserving the dignity of the throne, protecting Itsekiri identity and interests, promoting peace, engaging government and other institutions, and providing leadership in circumstances that are often politically and economically complicated.

These responsibilities do not mean that every demand made by every Itsekiri individual or group must be accepted. Nor does the fact that there is a particular dispute among brothers or subjects, it now automatically mean that the Olu has failed.

The present reign must be assessed on its engagement with the challenges it inherited, its efforts to preserve the unity and dignity of the Itsekiri Nation, its institutional initiatives and its contribution to the future of the kingdom.

If Emiko believes that the Olu has failed in a particular area, he should identify the specific decision, action or omission, provide the relevant facts and explain what alternative course of action he believes should have been taken rather than coming public to attack the throne like a mad dog. General accusations and sweeping conclusions do not constitute a meaningful contribution to the development of the kingdom.

3. THE PIPELINE SURVEILLANCE CONTRACT: FACTS MUST COME BEFORE ACCUSATIONS

The pipeline surveillance issue is another subject that requires a careful and honest discussion.

It is important to distinguish between the traditional authority of the Olu, the commercial arrangements made by private companies, the responsibilities of contractors and the interests of individuals or groups involved in the surveillance business.

The Olu's position as the traditional ruler of the Itsekiri people should not be confused with the management of a commercial surveillance contract. At the same time, nobody should expect the Palace to remain indifferent where the interests, security and welfare of the Itsekiri people are affected.

There have been allegations and competing accounts concerning how the surveillance arrangements evolved, who benefited from them and the motivations behind changes in the allocation of responsibilities. One account suggests that disagreements arising from the succession period, including suspicions about the use of surveillance proceeds to support opposing interests, contributed to efforts to weaken certain individuals and reduce the influence of the Palace.

The central question should be whether the interests of the Itsekiri people are being protected and whether the arrangements are transparent, fair and accountable.

4. THE SOLE REPRESENTATIVE TO NNPC LIMITED: A LONGSTANDING INSTITUTION, NOT AN INVENTION OF THIS REIGN

Perhaps one of the most revealing aspects of Emiko's criticism is his treatment of the appointment of Prince Collins Oritsetimeyin Edema as Sole Representative of the Olu of Warri to NNPC Limited.

The historical facts surrounding this office must be clearly stated.

The office of Sole Representative of the Olu of Warri to NNPC Limited did not begin with Ogiame Atuwatse III. It is a longstanding office that existed before the present reign.

Prince Collins Oritsetimeyin Edema did not create the office, neither did Ogiame Atuwatse III invent it. Prince Collins succeeded Hon. Griftson Omatsuli, who served as Sole Representative of the Olu of Warri to NNPC for about Fifteen years.

This is an important historical fact that cannot be wished away.

If the office existed for over a decade under a previous reign, why is its existence suddenly being presented as a problem now? Was the office legitimate when Hon. Griftson Omatsuli occupied it, but illegitimate when Prince Collins Edema succeeded him? What exactly has changed in the nature of the office that now makes it objectionable? Or because personal gains was rejected over collective gains?

Criticism must be consistent. One cannot ignore the history of an institution simply because its current occupant is not one's preferred choice by some old takers who want everything for themselves. 

The Sole Representative is appointed to represent the Olu within an assigned sphere of engagement, particularly in matters relating to the oil and gas industry and dealings with NNPC Limited where the interests or authority of the Olu are involved. Such a representative may communicate the Palace's position, facilitate engagement and speak on matters within the scope of the assignment.

That role does not make the appointee the Olu, nor does it make him the exclusive voice of every Itsekiri person or organisation. It is a representative responsibility exercised on behalf of the throne.

It is also worth asking whether those now attacking the office have always maintained the same position about it when their favored choices were appointed into the office. It is understood that Emiko himself had approached Prince Collins Edema on several occasions seeking personal assistance and support for matters concerning the Itsekiri cause. If that is so, he should explain why engagement with the representative was acceptable when it suited his purpose but is now being portrayed as inherently wrong, when some of his demands were not meant.

The issue should be the proper discharge of the office, the scope of its authority and the accountability of its occupant—not the denial of an established institutional history.

The office did not begin with Ogiame Atuwatse III, and Prince Collins Edema did not invent it. Hon. Griftson Omatsuli's over-ten-year tenure is part of the history that must be acknowledged.

5. CAN THE OLU BE A CHAIRMAN OF A COMPANY?

Emiko also raises questions about the Olu's relationship with Pipeline Infrastructure Nigeria Limited (PINL) and appears to suggest that the Olu is merely a paid employee, maybe because his level of education and awareness limits is knowledge to who a company board chairman his.

This argument requires a clear distinction between being a chairman and being an employee.

A person who serves as chairman of a company is not automatically an employee in the ordinary sense suggested by Emiko's description. The nature of the appointment, the company's governance structure and the terms of the position must be examined before conclusions are drawn.

The mere fact that a traditional ruler is associated with a company or commercial initiative does not, without more, establish a breach of customary obligations.

The relevant questions are the nature of the engagement, the capacity in which the monarch participates, the applicable customary provisions and whether the institution's dignity and independence are compromised.

It is therefore necessary to distinguish between serving as a chairman, participating in corporate governance, holding an interest in a business and being employed as a salaried staff member, which Emiko Oghomienor suggest.

These are not interchangeable descriptions.

If anyone alleges that the Olu is engaged in prohibited paid employment, that person should identify the applicable customary provision and provide evidence establishing the precise nature of the alleged employment.

There are historical precedents of Itsekiri monarchs occupying leadership positions in corporate organisations. Ogiame Erejuwa II, Ogiame Atuwatse II and Ogiame Ikenwoli I have all been associated with corporate chairmanships. Their involvement in such positions was not automatically interpreted as diminishing the dignity or authority of the throne.

Historical precedents should neither be ignored nor selectively applied.

6. GHIGHO AGHOFEN AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ITSEKIRI PEOPLE

The Ghigho Aghofen and other matters concerning the preservation of Itsekiri heritage, identity and traditional institutions deserve serious attention.

However, the preservation of our heritage cannot be made the sole responsibility of the Olu. It requires the participation of traditional chiefs, community leaders, political representatives, professionals, business people, youth organisations and the wider Itsekiri population.

The Palace can provide leadership and direction, but the people must also contribute ideas, resources and practical support.

It is easy to demand results from the throne while remaining silent about what each of us is prepared to contribute. The development of the Itsekiri Nation cannot be achieved through open letters alone. It requires organisation, constructive engagement, institutional support and a willingness to work together.

If Emiko has specific proposals for the Ghigho Aghofen, the Ward Delineation issue, the protection of Itsekiri territories or the development of our communities, he should put them forward in clear and actionable terms rather than coming public to attack the throne.

The Itsekiri people need solutions, not simply a catalogue of grievances for personal gains.

7. THE NEED FOR CONSISTENCY AND RESPONSIBLE CRITICISM

There is nothing wrong with questioning the Palace. The Olu is a custodian of our collective heritage, and his reign must be open to thoughtful discussion. But there is a difference between constructive criticism and a narrative designed to discredit an institution.

A person who raises questions must also be prepared to answer questions about the accuracy, consistency and motivation behind those questions.

Why are inherited challenges being presented as though they originated with the current reign? Why is a longstanding office being criticised without acknowledging its history? Why are corporate positions occupied by previous monarchs treated differently from those of the present Olu? And why are complicated commercial and political disputes being reduced to allegations against the Palace without first establishing the facts?

These questions deserve answers.

The Itsekiri Nation has faced difficult periods before this reign. We have experienced political disagreements, disputes over representation, economic challenges and competing interests. None of these challenges can be resolved by pretending that they began yesterday or by assigning responsibility for every problem to the person currently occupying the throne.

We must also guard against allowing personal disagreements, political interests and commercial rivalries to determine how we assess the institution of the Olu.

8. WHICH WAY SHOULD THE ITSEKIRI PEOPLE GO?

The title of Emiko's letter asks an important question: Where are we and which way?

The answer should begin with unity, historical honesty and collective responsibility.

We must protect the dignity of the Olu of Warri without pretending that the Palace is above constructive scrutiny. We must defend Itsekiri interests without allowing personal ambition to divide us. We must demand accountability from those entrusted with responsibilities, but we must also apply the same standards consistently, regardless of who holds an office or when an appointment was made.

We should be able to disagree without destroying our institutions. We should be able to criticise without distorting history. And we should be able to demand progress while recognising the challenges inherited by each succeeding reign.

Ogiame Atuwatse III is not expected to solve every problem of the Itsekiri Nation overnight, nor should he be shielded from legitimate criticism. But he deserves to be assessed fairly, on the basis of verifiable facts and the actual circumstances of his reign.

Emiko Oghomienor is entitled to his opinion. However, the Itsekiri people are equally entitled to ask him to be consistent, historically accurate and evidence-based.

Our traditional institution is bigger than any individual. The throne has endured through different reigns, different political circumstances and different generations. It must not become a casualty of personal grievances or selective interpretations of history.

The way forward is not to weaken the throne, but to strengthen the Itsekiri Nation around it; not to rewrite our history, but to learn from it; and not to trade accusations, but to demand facts, accountability and practical solutions.

That is the conversation the Itsekiri people deserve not an outburst for disappointing personal benefits. 

Comrade Mone Oris

×