Re: A Blunt Response To The Itsekiri Historical Front’s Deceitful Open Letter On The Olu Of Warri
By Uche Alvin
RE: A Blunt Response to the Itsekiri Historical Front’s Deceitful Open Letter on the Olu of Warri
An Open Letter to His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu GCFR, the National Security Adviser, INEC, the Federal Government of Nigeria, and the International Community
By the Undisguised, Unshaken and Unapologetic Indigenous Peoples of Warri
Your Excellency,
We write with utmost clarity, unapologetic resolve and historic authority in response to the brazen and dishonest open letter dated 2rd July 2025, authored by the so-called Itsekiri Historical Front (IHF), in reaction to the widely-circulated publication titled “The Misleading Title ‘Olu of Warri’ and Its Impact” by the Concerned Citizens of Warri and Environs.
Let the truth ring loud and clear, the Olu of Warri does not speak for Warri, and never has. He speaks for the Itsekiri people only, a minority ethnic group in a multi-ethnic region built by the labor, blood and ancestral legacy of the Ijaws, the Urhobos, and other founding nations.
We are not “faceless.” We are landowners, kings, scholars, chiefs, and descendants of the true aboriginal peoples of Warri. And we do not need your permission or royal validation to assert our place.
THE FRAUDULENT CLAIMS OF THE ITSEKIRI HISTORICAL FRONT
ON MAPS AND CARTOGRAPHIC FRAUD
We are well aware of the misuse of colonial cartography by the Itsekiri to advance false ownership narratives. Historical maps by Europeans, Portuguese, Dutch and British, often labeled trade centers, not ethnic homelands. A town marked “Warri” or “Ware” on a map is no proof of ownership, sovereignty or population. These maps often ignored the complex landholding traditions of Niger Delta peoples.
Indeed, the British Parliamentary Papers on the Oil Rivers Protectorate (1891) repeatedly mentioned Ijaw and Urhobo settlements by name but rarely mentioned the Itsekiris beyond the Olu’s court, showing clearly that Itsekiri political power was symbolic and restricted, not expansive.
QUOTATIONS FROM COLONIAL ADMINISTRATORS AND REPORTS
Let us cite Captain D.H. Gallwey, British Vice-Consul for the Niger Coast Protectorate, who in his 1894 report wrote:
“The Ijos and Sobos inhabit the lands and creeks adjoining the Forcados and Escravos rivers. They control the waterways and fishing grounds… their leaders have been in negotiation with the government for recognition of their authority.”
This is direct colonial testimony affirming that the Ijaw and Urhobo peoples owned and governed their territories independently of any Olu or Itsekiri structure.
Similarly, the 1926 Court Judgement in W/62/1926 (Iginla vs. Eyewuoma) ruled:
“The Itsekiri claim to overlordship of Agbassa is unfounded. The people of Agbassa (Urhobo) are not tenants of the Olu or of any Itsekiri chief. They hold their land by inheritance.”
IJAW AND URHOBO VILLAGES EXISTED LONG BEFORE THE ITSEKIRI CAME
Before Ginuwa’s arrival in the late 15th century, Ijaw communities such as Ogbe-Ijoh, Gbaramatu, Isaba, Diebiri, Egbema and others had long existed, engaging in fishing, trade and complex inter-clan diplomacy. Similarly, Urhobo communities like Agbassa and Okere-Urhobo had well-established sociopolitical structures.
The Itsekiris did not bring civilization to Warri, they came into an already thriving, populated and structured region. Their narrative is built on colonial favoritism and elite collaboration, not on truth or demographic reality.
ON THE POPULATION DECEPTION AND ELECTORAL EVIDENCE
The Itsekiri Historical Front, in its usual exaggerative fashion, claims dominion over all Warri territories. Yet this is false and laughable. The Itsekiris have no population strength to back these claims.
The use of INEC’s BVAS machines in the 2023 general elections has further destroyed the population myth. In Warri South, Warri North, and Warri South-West LGAs, Ijaw and Urhobo units recorded 80–95% of the total votes. Itsekiri wards, especially those in sparsely populated creek areas, recorded zero or near-zero votes.
Even INEC’s internal delineation report in 2023 noted:
“Some wards in Warri South, Warri South West and Warri North returned less than 100 accredited voters in 10 units each. Verification shows most of these areas were uninhabited or inaccessible.”
This proves that the Itsekiris do not possess the demographic weight to justify their loud claims.
Furthermore, Chief Amaju Pinnick himself of Itsekiri descent, stated openly on national television that “the Itsekiris are not up to one million people.”
Where are these so-called Itsekiri villages? Beyond a few small settlements, they largely exist on paper, inflated by colonial favoritism, not demographic reality and used for ethnic gerrymandering. Compare this to Ijaw-dominated units in Ogbe-Ijoh, Gbaramatu, Isaba, and Urhobo units in Agbarha and Okere-Urhobo where thousands of voters turned out. The implication is simple, the Ijaws and Urhobos are the true numerical majority.
ON THE TITLE: “OLU OF WARRI” A POLITICAL FRAUD
The original title was “Olu of Itsekiri”, as seen in:
The Western Region Gazette of 1936
The Palmer Report (1932) on Native Administration
The Brass Native Ordinance (1929)
As admitted even by colonial officers, the title “Olu of Warri” was a political creation, weaponized by the Awolowo government to project Itsekiri dominance over non-Itsekiri lands. The title was changed from “Olu of the Itsekiri” to “Olu of Warri” in 1952 without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous Ijaw and Urhobo populations who make up the majority of the Warri region.
Let this be etched in Nigeria’s political conscience: The title “Olu of Warri” is a colonial-political invention, not a traditional reality. It was birthed not from truth but from the scheming minds of colonial collaborators and post-independence regional politicians who weaponized identity to suppress majority populations.
And even Chief Obafemi Awolowo, despite facilitating the change, later regretted the political fallout, acknowledging it sparked avoidable ethnic tension.
ON COLONIAL DOCUMENTS AND HISTORICAL RECORDS (EXPANDED)
We vehemently reject the selective manipulation of colonial-era documentation by the so-called Itsekiri Historical Front. These distorters of fact attempt to pass off scraps of colonial correspondence as holy writ while ignoring the avalanche of authoritative records, many of them published by British officials, that affirm Ijaw and Urhobo indigenous ownership of large parts of what is now referred to as Warri.
Let the records speak:
The Annual Colonial Reports (1890s–1906) of the Oil Rivers Protectorate, later Niger Coast Protectorate, extensively document the presence, authority and economic centrality of the Ijaw and Urhobo peoples. They were repeatedly referred to as landowners, canoe men, traders and dominant native groups in the Delta waterways. The Itsekiris, by contrast, were almost exclusively represented by their monarch, with no comparable spread of settlements or influence.
The Intelligence Report on Ogbe-Ijoh (1930s) issued by British colonial administrators categorically stated that Ogbe-Ijoh lands were not part of the Warri Native Administration and were never under the jurisdiction or traditional control of the Olu of Warri. This fact alone nullifies any Itsekiri claim of overlordship or ancestral ownership over that territory.
The 1956 Intelligence Report on Gbaramatu Clan unambiguously declared that the Olu of Warri had no authority, traditional, territorial or symbolic over any Ijaw or Urhobo community. These reports are not hearsay; they were official British government findings, compiled by intelligence officers tasked with understanding the traditional systems of governance for effective colonial administration.
Court Judgments such as:
Suit W/44/1941
SC/179/1953
W/62/1926 (Iginla v Eyewuoma)
These judgments upheld that Urhobo and Ijaw communities held ownership and title to their lands, and specifically noted that major towns such as Ogbe-Ijoh, Okerenkoko, Egbema, Gbaramatu, Oporoza, Agbassa and Okere-Urhobo were never held under Itsekiri sovereignty. The courts refused to grant any Itsekiri claim of overlordship over these towns because the evidence could not support such blatant lies.
Who Is The Real Stranger In Warri?
If we must entertain the question of indigeneity with intellectual honesty, then we must confront this truth: It is the Itsekiris who are historically the strangers, not the Ijaw or Urhobo peoples. The Itsekiri identity is a synthetic construct, created through a fusion of Yoruba migrants, Benin influence, Igala elements and Portuguese contact, beginning only in the late 15th century.
Even Obaro Ikime, an eminent scholar, in his book titled “The Niger Delta and the Western Niger” states that:
”The Itsekiri are a composite people, forged from migrants from various regions, unified under a monarchical structure by Ginuwa.”
They are not an autochthonous ethnic group with territorial continuity in the Warri region. Meanwhile, the Ijaw and Urhobo are recorded by archaeologists and colonial surveyors as having occupied the entire region for centuries before 1480.
Colonial Recognition of Ijaw and Urhobo Autonomy
The 1949 British Colonial Annual Report for Warri Province acknowledges that:
“The Gbaramatu, Egbema, Ogbe-Ijoh and Isaba clans of the Ijo are independent of the Warri Native Authority and not subject to the Olu.”
The Intelligence Report on Okere-Urhobo (1934) clearly states:
“The Okere-Urhobo people trace no allegiance to the Olu of Warri and have never regarded him as their traditional ruler.”
In the Western Nigeria Gazette of 1952, the administrative records reaffirm that:
“The Olu of Warri’s domain is strictly limited to Itsekiri-speaking areas.”
It must be emphasized that when the colonial Native Authorities were formed, Ijaw and Urhobo communities rejected inclusion under the Olu’s jurisdiction, leading to the formation of separate Native Courts and administrative units. This alone proves a lack of sovereignty.
The Olu’s Title: A Colonial & Political Imposition
The change from “Olu of Itsekiri” to “Olu of Warri” in 1952 was a purely political maneuver, a colonial concession to appease the defunct Action Group’s desire to project ethnic superiority during regional power struggles.
Chief Alfred Rewane, a respected Itsekiri nationalist, stated in a 1993 press interview:
“The Olu has never ruled over the Ijaws or the Urhobos. We have our land; they have theirs.”
Setting The Record Straight On The Ijaws, The Urhobos And The True History Of Warri
We now turn to what must be called a deliberate falsification of ethnographic history by the Itsekiri Historical Front, one that desperately attempts to paint the indigenous Ijaw and Urhobo peoples as “pirates” and “refugees,” while elevating the Itsekiri, a migrant and composite group, as landlords and monarchs. This falsehood cannot stand.
The Ijaw: Indigenous Navigators And Foundational Settlers
It is both laughable and insulting that the Itsekiri Historical Front would misrepresent John Thornton’s Warfare in Atlantic Africa, 1500–1800 to label the Ijaw as “pirates.” Thornton, in context, was referring to maritime resistance common across all Niger Delta ethnic groups,Itsekiri included,during the slave trade. Naval rivalries were regional dynamics, not acts of criminality.
Let the records speak for themselves:
Prof. E.J. Alagoa, in A History of the Niger Delta (1972), states unequivocally:
”The Ijo are the earliest known settlers of the central Niger Delta. Their riverine settlements, cultural systems and clan lineages predate any centralized political structure in the region.”
P.A. Talbot in The Peoples of Southern Nigeria (1926) affirms:
“The Ijo occupied much of the creek systems from the Forcados to the Bonny River. Their claim to the Delta is more ancient than the rule of any Benin prince in the region.”
Rev. Hope Waddell, in Twenty-Nine Years in the West Indies and Central Africa (1863), describes:
“Ijo towns of the Delta as long-settled trading outposts governed by hereditary elders and free communities.”
This is not the language of piracy, it is the voice of sovereignty and truth.
The Urhobo: Agricultural Founders And Territorial Stakeholders
The claim that the Urhobo came to Warri as “refugees” or “slaves” is not only historically untrue but dangerously racist. The Urhobo were never vassals of the Itsekiri. Their settlements, Agbarha, Agbassa and Okere-Urhobo have always operated autonomously.
In The Sobo of the Niger Delta (1938), Rev. John Hubbard, often misquoted by Itsekiri writers, clarifies:
“The Sobos were not dependent. Their movement into lower Warri was driven by trading motives and community expansion, not displacement or refuge.”
Indeed, British colonial intelligence reports back this. In the Okere-Urhobo Intelligence Report (1934):
“The Okere-Urhobo have never paid homage to the Olu of Warri. Their customs, lineage and traditional leadership structures are entirely independent.”
The Myth of Itsekiri Antiquity And the Benin Lie
The Itsekiri proudly claim descent from Prince Ginuwa of Benin but that, by their own admission, makes them settlers, not indigenes. You cannot claim indigenous status and simultaneously trumpet foreign royal ancestry.
Even Jacob Egharevba, an official Benin historian, wrote in A Short History of Benin (1936):
“Ginuwa was exiled from Benin due to royal intrigue and sent to rule over peoples already living along the coast.”
This “rule” was symbolic at best, he came as a refugee, not a conqueror.
The Ijaws and Urhobos welcomed Ginuwa. They gave him land, wives and resources. That hospitality is now twisted into a false narrative of conquest. We reject it entirely.
On the Misuse of Maps And Colonial Cartography
Let us make it clear: Maps do not show ownership, they show points of trade and navigation.
While some old Dutch maps label coastal towns as “Awerri” or “Ouwerre,” this does not equate to Itsekiri sovereignty. In fact:
The 1846 British Admiralty Chart clearly marks Ogbe-Ijoh, Isaba, and Gbaramatu as separate, established settlements.
Talbot’s 1927 report stated:
“The Itsekiri occupy the fringe of the Forcados River. Inland belongs to the Sobos and the Ijo clans who outnumber them.”
These facts render the Itsekiri claim to all of “Warri” as historical fiction.
Etymology: “Warri” Is Not “Iwere”
The name “Warri” has nothing to do with “Iwere.” That is another colonial misinterpretation.
Prof. Ebi Yeibo, in Names and Their Meaning in Niger Delta Languages (1981), confirms:
“Wari or Ware is an Ijaw word denoting home or compound. It is found in several clan dialects, including Mein, Gbaramatu, and Ogulagha.”
The colonial ear misheard “Wari” and recorded it as “Warri.” The Itsekiris now claim this as their own linguistic invention? Preposterous.
Early European Recognition – Misused, Misquoted and Misunderstood
It is both pathetic and intellectually dishonest for the Itsekiri Historical Front to parade fragmented references from early European explorers, traders and missionaries as if such selective snippets confer imperial authority upon the Olu of Itshekiri over lands and peoples beyond his reach. History is not a buffet where you pick only what suits your agenda.
Let us now dissect these so-called “foreign validations” and place them in historical, ethnographic and political context, with evidence they cannot twist:
Portuguese Recognition (1607) – A Transaction, Not a Coronation
Yes, the Portuguese established diplomatic and religious contact with the Olu of Warri but so they did with Bonny, Calabar, and Benin. None of those kings claimed to be monarchs over one another. These interactions were based on access to trade routes and missionary entry, not on territorial sovereignty. As any serious historian knows, religious diplomacy is not the same as ethnic overlordship.
If Portuguese interaction equals ownership, then the Pope owns half of Africa. Ridiculous.
John Barbot (1680) – Warri Was a Trading Post, Not a Kingdom
Barbot referred to “Oywere” in the Forcados River, not modern-day Warri mainland and certainly not Urhobo or Ijaw territories. Barbot’s full texts describe interactions with Ijaw canoe men and Urhobo farmers, not subservient vassals of any Olu. The very fact that Barbot met Ijaw leaders independently proves that Olu’s domain never included the full territory now labeled Warri.
Father Merolla da Sorrento (1682)
The Itsekiris selectively quote Merolla when he mentions the Olu, but hide the larger truth: Merolla’s missionary work extended to Ijaw towns like Ogbe-Ijoh, Gbaramatu, Ogulagha and Apoi, and at no point did he mention needing the Olu’s permission to operate there. Missionaries freely accessed Ijaw lands. That is not how sovereignty works.
Captain Landolphe (1786) & the Compagnie d’Owere et de Benin
The French company mentioned Warri and Benin for commercial purposes, not as subjects of one another and definitely not as political overlords of entire provinces. That charter was mercantile not administrative. The Olu was a middleman for European goods, not a land-controlling monarch.
Urbanus Cerri & the Vatican (1651)
Letters to the Pope? So what? Kongo, Oyo, Calabar, and others also corresponded with the Vatican. This proves nothing beyond Christian vanity diplomacy.
Ijaw and Urhobo: The Documented Indigenous Peoples of Warri
What the Itsekiri refuse to admit but every serious historian already knows, is that the Ijaw and Urhobo peoples were the original landowners in the area now politically called Warri. This is not speculation, it is colonial fact, anthropological consensus and oral continuity.
Let’s examine just a handful of irrefutable citations:
Prof. Onigu Otite – The History of the Urhobo People of the Niger Delta (2003):
“Agbassa and Okere-Urhobo were in existence long before any Itsekiri kingdom was established. The Urhobo of Warri are the aboriginal people of the mainland.”
Prof. E.J. Alagoa – A History of the Niger Delta:
“The western Ijo communities, Gbaramatu, Egbema, Ogbe-Ijoh, Isaba are among the most ancient of the central Delta. They were never conquered.”
British Intelligence Report on Warri Division (1936):
“While the Olu holds traditional jurisdiction over Ode-Itsekiri and some adjoining settlements, most of the inland and creek villages fall under the control of Urhobo and Ijaw elders.”
Memoirs of H.L. Gallwey (British Consul, Oil Rivers Protectorate):
“The so-called Warri Kingdom appears to be more a trading alliance than a structured monarchy. Many of the surrounding towns are under independent village heads, mainly Ijos.”
Let the world hear it: Urhobo and Ijaw lands were never part of the Olu’s political or cultural kingdom. Not then. Not now. Not ever.
The True Indigenous Peoples of Warri – Distorted Maps, Rejected Court Claims and a Fraudulent Title
The Itsekiri Historical Front’s narrative is a crumbling castle built on cartographic cherry-picking, half-baked legal interpretations and ethnocentric arrogance. Let us now set the records straight, brick by brick, with undeniable facts, historical truth and legal clarity. We reject outrightly their manipulation of history and we call on the Federal Government, INEC, and all fair-minded Nigerians to do the same.
ON CARTOGRAPHIC DECEPTION: A Map Is Not a Monarchy
The claim that “81 maps from 1498” prove Itsekiri rulership over Warri is both delusional and deceitful. Let’s be clear, early maps marked geography, not kingship. The so-called “Iwerre” referenced on ancient maps were settlements not political kingdoms and nowhere do these maps describe “Itsekiri” as a people or polity. In fact, the name “Itsekiri” does not appear on any of these early maps until the 19th century. Even the 1705 Dutch map by Van Keulen lists “Ijo Towns” near the Forcados and Escravos rivers, alongside “Sobo settlements,” but no reference to an Itsekiri empire or kingdom ruling the interior.
They claim “Iwere” is the origin of Warri but linguists and historians such as Prof. E. J. Alagoa and Dr. P. C. Lloyd have long clarified that “Warri” is an Anglicized corruption of “Wari” or “ware” a Western Ijaw term for settlement or compound. Thus, the very name they cling to is Ijaw in origin, not Itsekiri.
ON COURT CASES: Selective Citations, Ignored Defeats
The Itsekiri Historical Front parades legal cases like a badge of conquest but hides the ones that utterly destroy their claim of overlordship:
SC/309/1974 (Okumagba Case): The court upheld Urhobo possession, and the Olu of Warri was denied radical title. The Itsekiris lost.
W/44/194: The court rejected the Olu’s claim over Urhobo land, affirming that long-standing occupation equals ownership under customary law.
W/3/1949 – Chief Sillo v. Chief Okotie-Eboh: The independence of Agbassa Urhobo people from the Olu’s jurisdiction was upheld in court.
SC.93/1998 (Jamabo & Others v. Itsekiri): This Itsekiri-backed case was struck out for lack of jurisdiction. It was never a win, despite their propaganda. When they shout about legal victories, they forget to whisper about legal defeats. That is manipulation, not history.
ON ETHNIC JURISDICTION: Stay in Your Lane
Let the Olu of Warri and his followers be reminded:
He has no traditional jurisdiction over Gbaramatu, Ogbe-Ijoh, Diebiri, Isaba, or Egbema Ijaw territories.
He has no say in Okere-Urhobo and Agbarha all of which are under Urhobo kings.
He cannot summon Ijaw or Urhobo kings to his palace.
He cannot enter most parts of Warri South-West or Warri North without permission from the actual landowners.
Traditional rule in Nigeria is ethnic and territorial. There is no single lordship in a multiethnic city. The Olu is a king over the Itsekiris, not over Warri
The Colonial Interruption: A Tale of Imposed Privilege, Not Restoration
It is both deceptive and intellectually bankrupt for the Itsekiri Historical Front (IHF) to parade colonial-era manipulation as a so-called “restoration of ancestral truth.” The resurrection of the title “Olu of Warri” in 1952 was not the product of divine history or ethnic justice, it was a political accommodation designed by British imperialists and their postcolonial Itsekiri allies to appease a loud but numerically insignificant minority.
Let us set the record straight.
The 1936 Adjustment: Not an Error But a Correction
In 1936, the British colonial administration revived the Olu title by installing Ginuwa II as the Olu of Itsekiri.
This was not a “mistake.” It was a response to justice, grounded in the multi-ethnic reality of Warri Province. As Chief Mukoro Mowoe of the Urhobo and Ijaw elders consistently argued, ethnic monarchs cannot wield titles that override other peoples in a plural society.
Dr. Azikiwe’s Misquoted Editorial: Not a Legal Decree
The Itsekiri often invoke Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and his 1940 editorial in West African Pilot (May 14, 1940) as evidence of national support for the Olu’s title. But here’s what Azikiwe actually said:
“His Highness Ginuwa II is Olu of the Itsekiri-speaking people who live on Itsekiril land. For the matter is discussed in detail, it will be found that a definite title is necessary, in which case, the Olu of Warri seems to be the most historical and correct.”
But this was an analogy, not a ruling. Azikiwe was not a Warri indigene, nor did he speak as a constitutional authority. Moreover, Lagos, which he referenced, is historically Yoruba land not contested by multiple ethnic nations like Warri is. That comparison was intellectually lazy and constitutionally invalid.
Awolowo’s 1952 Compromise: Political Appeasement, Not Historical Correction
The Action Group dominated Western House of Assembly passed the infamous 1952 amendment re-imposing the “Olu of Warri” title as a political deal, not a historical truth.
Chief M.E.R. Okorodudu, representing the Itsekiri, negotiated a compromise to rename the region “Delta Province” and permit the Olu’s new title. Chief P.K. Tobiowo, representing the Urhobo, forcefully rejected this deception, invoking earlier protests by Chief Mowoe.
Despite the pushback, Awolowo rammed the bill through, thus creating a permanent wound in the fabric of Warri’s fragile ethnic coexistence. The result?
1952–1955: Warri burned in violent riots.
1979: Ogbe-Ijoh/Itsekiri crisis reignited over the same title dispute.
1997–1999: Following the creation of Warri South-West LGA, Ijaw and Urhobo villages were violently attacked. Dozens killed. Hundreds displaced.
This title is soaked in the blood of political arrogance.
Ijaw Objections Were Loud and Documented
Let the world know: the Ijaws never accepted this colonial fraud.
Communiqués from Gbaramatu, Ogbe-Ijoh, Diebiri, Isaba (1953–1955) rejected the Olu’s title.
These petitions, preserved in the Nigerian National Archives, Enugu, warned the colonial administration that giving one ethnic monarch dominion over a diverse city would provoke unrest. And unrest it did, Repeatedly.
The Urhobos, too, stood firm. Their UPU memoranda, legislative motions and editorials all condemned the 1952 political fraud.
No Peace Since the Title Was Changed
The Itsekiri Historical Front pretends the Olu title unites Warri. We ask: where is the peace?
1952: Ijaw and Urhobo homes burnt by Itsekiri mobs over the title.
1979: Re-enthronement of the Olu reignites ethnic conflict.
1997: The LGA creation leads to ethnic cleansing in parts of Warri.
2003–2007: Multiple electoral cycles marred by ward delineation violence. How can a title that breeds division claim historical righteousness?
The Rewane Fiction: A Businessman, Not a Historian
Citing Alfred Rewane, an Itsekiri millionaire-politician, to justify Itsekiri dominion over Warri is laughable. That’s like citing Adolf Hitler’s secretary to confirm Nazi innocence.
Rewane’s 1993 letter has no legal weight. He was not a historian. He was not neutral. He was not from Ijaw. His opinions serve only as ethnic propaganda.
Legal Boundaries Are Clear: The Olu Has No Jurisdiction Outside Itsekiri Land
As codified in the Delta State Traditional Rulers Council and Chiefs Edict (1979), Section 6:
“The jurisdiction of any recognized traditional ruler shall be limited to the ethnic community from which he derives title and authority.”
We reject:
. The Itsekiri campaign to overwrite the multi-ethnic truth of Warri with a mono-ethnic monarchy. . The continued use of colonial titles as political weapons.
. The ethnic gerrymandering of wards by manipulating INEC. . Any suggestion that the Olu of Itsekiri is a king over Ijaw and Urhobo lands.
WE DEMAND:
1. The immediate correction of the title from Olu of Warri to Olu of Itsekiri, in all government documents, gazettes and records.
2. That INEC immediately publishes the final and fair ward delineation outcome for Warri South, Warri South-West and Warri North LGAs, without caving to threats.
3. That the Federal Government inaugurates a Truth and Peace Commission on the true history of Warri to end this colonial-era distortion.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
We are not tenants. We are not strangers.
We are the Ijaw and Urhobo peoples, the ancestral landowners of Warri.
We will not bow to a political title.
We will not be erased.
We will not be silenced.
Warri is not a fiefdom. Warri is not for sale. Warri is not Iwere. Let history speak. Let justice reign. Let truth be heard.
Yours sincerely
Signed;
Ebiowei kuro
President
Rukevwe Ovo
Secretary
Concerned Citizens of Warri and Environs.
About The Author
Share this:
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
