Ijaw Group Makes Rebuttal To Publication Made By IPAC, Describes Publication As Laden With Falsehood -

By Uche Alvin

REBUTTAL TO IPAC’S FALSEHOOD-LADEN PUBLICATION:

By: Concerned Ijaw Stakeholders Of Warri Federal Constituency

“The greatest enemy of truth is often not the lie but the myth.” John F. Kennedy

INTRODUCTION: WHEN DISTORTION BECOMES POLICY, TRUTH MUST BECOME RESISTANCE

“A lie told a thousand times becomes policy but a truth spoken once with courage can shatter an empire of deception.” Anonymous Niger Delta elder

We write not merely to rebut but to expose. We write not from convenience but from historical wounds, wounds inflicted by centuries of colonial manipulation, elite betrayal and ethnocentric fraud, all of which congealed into one toxic narrative, that the Itsekiri people own Warri.

No falsehood in Nigerian history has been more persistently propagated, more dangerously entrenched and more violently enforced than this myth. The rejoinder published by the Itsekiri Public Affairs Committee (IPAC) titled “Truth Rooted in History: The Itsekiri Legacy of Warri” is not just a document of selective citations and legal cherry-picking, it is a continuation of a colonial fraud project. A project that began in the era of Dore Numa’s fraudulent land leases, was codified through British administrative favoritism and is now being weaponized by an elite class of royalists to rewrite territorial and political truths in the Niger Delta.

This is not just an academic dispute over history, it is a battle for justice, land, identity and representation.

For decades, the Itsekiri monarchy and elite political actors have deployed British-forged titles, questionable court precedents, forged leases, political access and propaganda to suppress the ancestral rights of the Ijaw and Urhobo peoples in Warri Federal Constituency. Through a mixture of royal mythmaking, cartographic deceit and institutional capture, they have claimed territories they never settled, towns they never built and populations they never ruled.

They now cry foul over the call for equitable delineation, when in truth, they have enjoyed decades of artificial electoral dominance under a ward structure that violates both democratic equity and constitutional principles. They claim ancestral ownership of Warri, yet their population is minor in all three LGAs that make up the Warri Federal Constituency. They invoke the name of Olu Ginuwa, a Benin migrant of the 15th century, as if his journey across the river erased the existence of the Ijaw Gbaramatu, Ogbe-Ijoh, Isaba, Diebiri and the Urhobo Okere, Agbassa, and Uvwie, all of whom were there centuries before the British called anything “Warri.”

They reference court cases but never mention Shell v. Tiebo VII, Sillo v. Military Governor or the Supreme Court ruling in Timinimi v. INEC, which ordered a fresh ward delineation. They call the Olu of Warri a “pre-colonial monarch,” but fail to mention that the title “Olu of Warri” was created in 1952, against the protest of the Ijaw and Urhobo peoples, as recorded in Colonial Office File CO 554/120/5.

This rebuttal is not just a counter-statement. It is an intellectual liberation, a historical correction and a legal resurrection. We will unveil the real story, backed by colonial archives, court rulings, population data, constitutional law and oral history. We will expose how a minority, once tenants on the creek edges, became landlords by deceitful propaganda.

The Itsekiri monarchy has never been a territorial authority over Warri as a whole. The Olu is only king over Itsekiri people, not Ijaw or Urhobo lands. Government gazettes confirm this. Delta State Traditional Rulers Law confirms this. The Nigerian courts, when not politically hijacked have confirmed this.

As the Itsekiri elite attempt to stop INEC from releasing the final delineation report, ordered by Nigeria’s Supreme Court, we must warn: Warri will not be silenced again. We have followed due process. We have obeyed the law. And now, we demand justice. If they are dissatisfied, let them return to court, not to the pages of propaganda.

Let the world know: We are not agitators, we are the aboriginal landlords of Warri. And in this battle for truth, no lie, no matter how ancient or elegant, will stand unchallenged.

WHEN FABRICATIONS PRETEND TO BE FACTS:
THE MYTH OF ITSEKIRI OWNERSHIP

The Itsekiri narrative that seeks to debunk Ijaw aboriginal ownership is not only a historical distortion, it is a colonial lie dressed in royal regalia, repackaged with selective scholarship and now weaponized to justify illegitimate political and territorial dominance in Warri. IPAC’s claim that the Warri Kingdom was “founded” by Olu Ginuwa in the 15th century and that the Ijaws are recent settlers is not only untrue, it is tragically laughable and contradicted by precolonial ethnography, archival documents and even oral records preserved by early European traders.

Let us start where truth begins: the Ijaws were in the Niger Delta and Warri creeks long before Ginuwa was exiled from Benin. The Portuguese explorer Duarte Pacheco Pereira, writing in his 1495 record Esmeraldo de Situ Orbis, referred to the “Sequa people of Escravos,” describing their expansive fishing settlements in the exact location now called Gbaramatu and Ogbe-Ijoh. No mention of Ginuwa. No mention of a centralized Itsekiri kingdom. Only Ijaw clans, autonomous and established, living freely on land and water.

The claim that Ginuwa founded a “Warri Kingdom” is an anachronism. The term “Warri” itself was a colonial coined from the Ijaw word “ware or wari,” meaning settlement and even that word appears in no document before the 1800s. Ginuwa arrived, not as a king but as a Benin political refugee, a “stranger element” seeking refuge, not dominion. The Ijaws as custom dictated, offered him land to settle in Ode-Itsekiri, not the authority to rule over them. This isn’t fiction, it is verified by early colonial correspondence. In CO 554/124/3 (1938), British Resident Officer A.E. Grier noted:
“The Olu of Itsekiri holds ceremonial leadership within the Itsekiri race. His influence does not extend to the Ijo or Urhobo populations, who maintain their own native authorities.”

Furthermore, the attempt to use Prof. P.A. Talbot’s 1926 work to affirm Itsekiri sovereignty is a misrepresentation. Talbot clearly stated that the Itsekiris were “a hybrid people of Yoruba and Benin descent” who settled among “pre-existing fishing and farming groups,” particularly the Ijo and Urhobo. Talbot’s description of a centralized kingdom refers only to Itsekiri internal structure, not dominion over the entire Warri region. The Ijaws were not “scattered,” they were autonomous, as evidenced by their ability to enter into direct treaties with the British before the Olu was even recognized.

In fact, in CSO 26/Vol. 6/08549, the colonial government itself acknowledged Ijaw and Urhobo chiefs as landlords, not tenants. These documents contain clear language where the Ijaws were signing as owners, and Itsekiri agents like Dore Numa were acting on behalf of the Olu, but only for lands within Itsekiri-speaking areas. Dore Numa was a known colonial agent, not a landowner. In Ometa v. Dore Numa (1926), the court case that IPAC often brags about, the Privy Council relied on the lease documents prepared by Numa, despite protests from local landlords, many of whom were deliberately excluded. The result? A colonial endorsement of land usurpation, not a reflection of true customary ownership.

The Ijaw claim that they “allowed” Ginuwa to settle is not only historically credible, it is legally consistent with patterns of land ownership adjudicated by Nigerian courts. In Shell v. Tiebo VII (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 445), the Supreme Court upheld that Gbaramatu Kingdom (Ijaw) had full proprietary rights over the land Shell was using for oil operations. The Olu of Warri and Itsekiri were not even parties in the matter because they had no claim there. In Sillo v. Military Governor (1973), the Court ruled in favor of the Ijaw people of Ogbe-Ijoh, affirming that the land was theirs and that the Olu held no customary rights over it.

IPAC’s claim that areas such as Okere, Igbudu, Agbassa, Ugbori, Ekurede, Odion, and Pessu have “always been Itsekiri” is a complete erasure of Urhobo ancestral settlements, many of which date back centuries before the British recognized any “Olu.” In Ojakovo v. Ajomiwe (1961), the court ruled that Urhobo communities in Okere had ownership rights to 210 acres of land, defeating Itsekiri claims of exclusive possession. That land was not “granted” by the Olu; it was inherited by Urhobo families. The British simply chose to ignore these indigenous realities for administrative ease.

Moreover, the Warri that IPAC refers to is a colonial construct, formed after the creation of the Warri Division by the Southern Nigeria Protectorate. The Olu’s influence was elevated not by history, but by British preference for centralized rule. This is evident in the comments of Governor Lord Frederick Lugard, who wrote in 1918:

“It is more efficient to recognize one chief (the Olu) as a focal point of governance, even if his historic claim is weak.”

Today’s Itsekiri claims are built on that weak foundation. A monarchy recognized for colonial governance is now being used to claim ancestral ownership. This is a fraud historically, legally and morally.

It is not the Ijaw who distort history. It is the Itsekiri, who attempt to stretch the limits of their migratory settlement in Ode-Itsekiri into a grand narrative of conquest and control. But the documents don’t lie. The courts don’t lie. The land remembers its owners. Warri is not Iwere. The Olu is not our king. And no amount of historical revisionism can change the truth carved in riverbanks, engraved in colonial archives and spoken through the living traditions of the Ijaw and Urhobo peoples.

The Olu of Warri Title Misrepresentation
“From Olu of Itsekiri to Olu of Warri: The 1952 Colonial Fraud That Fabricated a Kingdom”

The claim by the Itsekiri Public Affairs Committee (IPAC) that the 1952 change from “Olu of Itsekiri” to “Olu of Warri” was a mere reflection of “historical scope” is a blatant lie, a deliberate falsification of colonial records, a manipulation of legal facts and an insult to the ethnic nationalities who protested this imposition. The Olu of Warri title is not rooted in antiquity, it is a British colonial invention, smuggled into law to serve indirect rule and rejected by every indigenous group outside the Itsekiri ethnic enclave. The Ijaw letter rightly cited Colonial Office File CO 554/120/5 (1952) because that file exposes the core of the fraud, not just the fact that the title was changed but that it was changed against the will of the indigenous peoples who lived in Warri long before the Olu title ever existed.

To suggest that the change from “Olu of Itsekiri” to “Olu of Warri” merely clarified jurisdiction is a grotesque understatement. That file — CO 554/120/5 — includes detailed protests by Chief E.E. Sillo of Ogbe-Ijoh, Chief Okumagba of Agbassa and several Urhobo and Ijaw representatives who warned that such a title would be interpreted as an attempt to establish Itsekiri dominance over territories they neither controlled nor owned. The British colonial authorities, however, in their usual arrogance, dismissed these warnings under the pretext of administrative convenience, not truth.

In fact, the very memorandum presented by the Western Region Government to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1952 confirms that the Itsekiri were lobbying for the title change precisely to give the Olu external legitimacy. In the confidential memo dated 10th March 1952, the Resident Officer noted:

“The change of title is political. The Itsekiri wish to elevate the Olu’s status beyond Ode-Itsekiri. The Ijo and Urhobo fear this will translate into claims over their territories. They are justified in their concern.”

This was never about “clarifying” an existing title. It was about expanding the Olu’s influence where it never previously existed. Even Governor Sir H. Macpherson, in his private correspondence with the Secretary of State, warned that:

“The change of title is not reflective of native custom. There is no evidence that the Olu ever ruled the Ijo or Urhobo. The new title could deepen ethnic tensions.”

How then can the IPAC shamelessly claim this was not an imposition?

The colonial authorities knew exactly what they were doing, they were creating a manageable ethnic figurehead to simplify administration. In doing so, they desecrated the autonomy of other indigenous nations, violating the age-old principle of native law and custom, which the Supreme Court in Sillo v. Military Governor (1973) later reaffirmed:

“The Olu of Warri is not a paramount ruler over all Warri communities. His authority is limited to his Itsekiri subjects. The Ijaw and Urhobo have their own independent structures.”

If the Olu title had “pre-colonial roots,” why was it unknown to the Portuguese, the Dutch, and even early British explorers prior to 1848? The Church Missionary Society records from 1862 make reference to “the chief of the Itsekiri” but never use the word “Olu of Warri.” In fact, the earliest recorded usage of that specific title appears only in the 20th century, long after Britain had consolidated its colonial protectorates. The truth is unavoidable: the “Olu of Warri” is a 20th-century colonial fabrication designed to blur ethnic boundaries and falsely project the Itsekiri monarchy as territorially supreme.

Even Prof. Philip Igbafe, whom IPAC cited, did not validate their narrative. In “Benin Under British Administration” (1979), Igbafe stated plainly that the Olu’s jurisdiction was ethnic, not territorial and limited to Itsekiri-speaking areas. He never suggested that the Olu had legitimate authority over multi-ethnic Warri. Instead, he wrote:

“The British exaggerated the authority of the Olu, creating resentment among neighboring groups. This was a common pattern under indirect rule.”
This quote alone demolishes the claim that the Olu’s title reflects “historical reality.”

The colonial files go further. In CO 554/127/1 (1953), the Intelligence Report on Warri District states unequivocally:

“It is not within the knowledge of any Ijo or Urhobo chief that they have ever paid tribute to the Olu or recognized him as king. His authority ends at the Itsekiri borderlines.”

So how can this title be anything but a fraud?

Today, the Itsekiri elite try to retroactively impose meaning on the title “Olu of Warri,” knowing full well that it was never accepted by the people it seeks to encompass. This is not a cultural misreading, it is a political strategy. They want to use the colonial name as a basis for land claims, ward dominance and institutional capture. That is why they oppose the Supreme Court-ordered delineation in Timinimi v. INEC (SC/CV/1033/2023). That is why they scream “historical rights” while hiding the fact that their so-called monarchy has no legal jurisdiction beyond Itsekiri ethnic boundaries.

The Olu of Warri is not a pan-Warri monarch. He is a traditional ruler of the Itsekiri people, nothing more, nothing less. His claim over Warri is as fictional as the title itself. No court has declared him sovereign over Ijaw or Urhobo territories. No colonial document grants him overlordship. No ethnographic record from the 15th to 19th century ever refers to such a title. What remains, then, is colonial fraud turned cultural entitlement, a lie repeated so often that it now parades as heritage.

But lies crumble. And the truth, legal, historical and ancestral is now shouting through the documents, courtrooms and memories of the Ijaw and Urhobo people. The “Olu of Warri” is a name imposed, not inherited and no amount of selective quoting can whitewash the facts.

Misinterpretation of Court Rulings
“When Colonial Courts Became Tools of Ethnic Theft: The Selective Legal Memory of the Itsekiri”

The IPAC’s desperate attempt to dismiss landmark legal victories by the Ijaw and Urhobo peoples as “misinterpretations” is not only laughable, it is dishonest, disgraceful and intellectually bankrupt. This is classic Itsekiri revisionism: dismiss every court ruling they lost as “irrelevant,” and sanctify every colonial-era judgment they won, no matter how fraudulent or contextually limited as gospel truth. But Nigerian jurisprudence does not operate on ethnic sentiment. It operates on facts, evidence and territory-specific adjudication and the record is clear, the Olu of Warri is not the overlord of Warri Federal Constituency.

Let us start with Shell Petroleum Development Company v. Tiebo VII (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 445) 657, which IPAC desperately tries to reduce to a “Gbaramatu issue.” This case was a direct affirmation of Ijaw customary ownership rights over land within Warri South-West LGA, particularly oil-bearing lands. The Supreme Court held that the Ijaw plaintiffs had established title under native law and custom. What the Itsekiri cannot deny is that the lands in question fell squarely within the boundaries of Warri Federal Constituency and that Shell never called a single Itsekiri witness to challenge the ownership. That silence was deafening and legally telling. The court did not just affirm community land ownership, it rendered the Olu’s territorial claim completely invisible.

Next, they attempt to distort Sillo v. Military Governor of Mid-Western State (1973). But the ruling in that case was emphatic: Ogbe-Ijoh is Ijaw land. The court categorically refused to recognize the Olu as having any customary rights over it. The Itsekiri lawyers, relying on dubious land grants from colonial times, failed to prove ownership or overlordship. The court’s decision was a landmark against imposed authority. That judgment is not irrelevant, it is foundational.

Then they try to wave off Ojakovo v. Ajomiwe (1961) as “not negating Itsekiri overlordship.” That is a bold lie. In that case, the Urhobo of Okere successfully sued for possessory title to 210 acres of land within Warri township, defeating the Itsekiri position that the land fell under their control. The Itsekiri claim to overlordship was rejected by the court. It was not affirmed, it was defeated. No court in that case upheld the Olu’s authority, yet IPAC shamelessly twists this into an endorsement of their false claims.

Now compare that to the so-called “robust legal record” they cite. Take Ometa v. Chief Dore Numa (1926) 11 N.L.R. 18, for instance. That decision was not based on land ownership by the Itsekiri under native law and custom, it was based on colonial leases granted by Dore Numa, a known British agent who leased out lands he had no ancestral title to. His role was condemned even by colonial administrators. In fact, in CO 520/3/19 (1927), the Colonial Secretary noted:

“Dore Numa’s land dealings have attracted local resentment, as many of these lands were leased under dubious authority and customary ownership was bypassed.”
This is what the Itsekiri call “legal victory”
colonial fraud.

Then comes Omagbemi v. Chief Dore Numa (1923) 5 N.L.R. 17 – again, based on questionable leases involving Alder’s Town and Ogbe-Ijaw. In both communities, the Ijaws protested vigorously that Dore Numa acted without their consent. That protest is recorded in CSO 26/6/08549 where Ijaw and Urhobo chiefs are documented as landlords, not tenants. That case, like Ometa, rests on British commercial preference not native land tenure.

The third case they cite, Chief Secretary to the Federation v. Itsekiri Communal Lands Trustees (W/41/57, 1970), is often touted as confirmation of Itsekiri ownership of Igbudu. But here’s what they hide: this case was not decided on root-of-title under customary law. It was a validation of government grants and prior administrative arrangements, not a historical land title. Moreover, Igbudu’s original occupation by Urhobo people has been documented since the late 1800s in Southern Nigeria Gazette No. 72 (1906), where the British District Officer noted:

“Igbudu is a mixed settlement with significant Urhobo elements. The claim of Itsekiri exclusivity is exaggerated and administratively dangerous.”

Let IPAC answer this simple question: if the Olu of Warri is truly the owner of all of Warri township, why have no courts ever granted him absolute title over Ijaw or Urhobo land in any modern case? Why is it that from 1960 till now, all community-initiated land disputes involving the Ijaw and Urhobo have either affirmed their rights or rejected Itsekiri overreach?

Why is it that in Ginuwa v. Ighogbadu (1981), the Supreme Court exposed even the Itsekiri royal succession as lacking fixed hereditary customs, undermining the foundation of the Olu’s authority?

This is the reality IPAC cannot face, most of the colonial-era judgments that appear to favor Itsekiri overlordship were rendered in a context where Dore Numa acted as a colonial proxy, using fake leases and government-backed trusteeship to override indigenous landowners. That era has passed. Today, Nigerian courts respect customary ownership not colonial convenience.

The Ijaw and Urhobo people have history, court victories and ancestral memory on their side. The Itsekiri have propaganda, colonial leftovers and legal relics of a dishonest past. But this time, no amount of legal gymnastics can erase the truth that is now roaring from the archives, the creeks and the courts.

The people who own the land are speaking. And they will no longer whisper.

The Ginuwa Narrative
“Ginuwa Was a Refugee, Not a Ruler: How the Itsekiri Twisted Hospitality into Sovereignty”

The Itsekiri narrative that Ginuwa was a Benin prince who came to establish a “Warri Kingdom” is a textbook example of how colonial lies become ethnic doctrines. Let it be said with righteous anger and academic clarity: Ginuwa did not found a kingdom. He fled a palace struggle in Benin and was granted refuge in the creeks of present-day Ode-Itsekiri, hosted and sheltered by Ijaw communities already living there. The Itsekiri elite, blinded by monarchic arrogance, continue to twist that act of hospitality into a claim of conquest. But history, both oral and documented, refuses to be silent.

First, no European record from the 15th to the 18th century refers to any entity called the “Warri Kingdom.” The earliest mention of the Olu title appears only in the 1800s. What the Portuguese explorers of the late 1400s and early 1500s described in their maps and logs was the land of the Sequa, known today as the Ijaws of Gbaramatu and Ogbe-Ijoh. In Pacheco Pereira’s 1495 logbook (Esmeraldo de Situ Orbis), he noted:

“We met the Sequa people in the land of Escravos, river dwellers and fierce fishermen, ruled by no king but their elders.”

Where, then, was the Olu? Where was this so-called kingdom?

The truth is, Ginuwa was a stranger. And as is customary in Ijaw law and tradition, strangers are shown hospitality, not sovereignty. Ginuwa was allowed to settle, not to reign. The idea that he established dominion is as fake as the 1952 title “Olu of Warri,” which the Itsekiri lobby smuggled into colonial records through deception, not historical continuity.

IPAC’s attempt to cite Prof. Obaro Ikime is also intellectual dishonesty. In Groundwork of Nigerian History (1980), Ikime does not say that Ginuwa founded Warri as a dominion. Instead, he distinguishes between the Itsekiri ethnic identity, which evolved through intermarriages between Yorubas, Ijaws and other migrants, and the Olu’s ceremonial role, which remained confined to Ode-Itsekiri and nearby hamlets. Ikime also emphasized the fluid, multicultural nature of the Warri region, where no one tribe exercised overlordship. That alone dismantles the Itsekiri fantasy.

Furthermore, the claim that CO 554/124/3 (1938) “affirms Itsekiri customary rights in Warri township” is a distortion. That file actually records strong disputes by Urhobo and Ijaw leaders against Itsekiri land encroachment. One section explicitly states:

“The Olu’s influence ends within the Itsekiri quarter. Neither the Ijo nor the Urhobo recognize the Olu as sovereign. They have their own chiefs and customary systems.”

So let us bury this Ginuwa myth once and for all. There was no kingdom. There was no conquest. There was no authority over the Ijaw or Urhobo people. Ginuwa was a guest and his descendants now claim to own the house.

Now, to the IPAC’s crocodile tears about the INEC delineation. Nothing is more insulting than the claim that “the Itsekiri are not opposed to delineation” when, in reality, they have opposed it for nearly three decades, using courts, elite influence, and open threats. It was only the Supreme Court in Timinimi v. INEC (SC/CV/1033/2023) that forced INEC to finally act, yet two years after, the final report is still withheld. If they did not oppose it, why is the final result still secret?

The truth is, the Itsekiri fear population-based delineation because it exposes the fraud of the current ward structure. In Warri South-West LGA, where the Ijaw form over 65% of the population, they have only 2 wards, while the minority Itsekiri enjoy 6. In Warri North, Itsekiri dominate 6 wards, while the Ijaw are nearly voiceless. This imbalance is unconstitutional, violating Section 112 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates ward creation be based on population and geography.

Let us be clear: the INEC Ward Assessment Survey (2022) was not “manipulated,” as IPAC claims. It was the first transparent process involving townhall hearings, field inspections, community input and biometric population sampling. The results were obvious: the Ijaw are the majority in Warri South-West and strong contenders in Warri South, while Itsekiri strongholds like Ugborodo and Omadino, often cited as large are geographically isolated and demographically smaller.

The claim that Sunny Amorighoye said “six Itsekiri wards, four Ijaw wards is balanced” is propaganda. That comment was made during a Channel TV debate where even the host questioned why the Ijaw majority in Warri South-West are still denied representation. Balance is not giving six wards to a minority tribe, it is correcting the injustice that the Supreme Court has already exposed.

IPAC’s reference to Ometa v. Chief Dore Numa (1926) as support for Itsekiri “ancestral rights” is laughable. That case was based on colonial lease documents executed by Dore Numa, who had no ancestral title, only British patronage. In fact, CSO 26/6/08549 shows that Dore Numa acted as a “government native agent,” not a traditional landlord. Those leases were fraudulently executed and many were later challenged by Urhobo and Ijaw families, some of whom had never given consent to the so-called “Itsekiri Communal Trustees.”

Let it be made clear: the Itsekiri fear delineation because it will end decades of stolen political advantage, expose their demographic minority and restore power to those who own the land by blood, heritage and ancestral settlement. Their sudden cry for “fairness” is nothing but a reactionary defense of privilege. They benefited from an unjust structure for years and now pretend to seek justice only when equity knocks on the door.

Warri Federal Constituency is not the private estate of the Olu. It is a plural, ancestral territory of Ijaw, Urhobo and Itsekiri communities, each with their own history and constitutional rights. INEC must release the final delineation result immediately. No more excuses. No more delay. No final result, no continuous voter registration.

This is not a threat. It is a constitutional position grounded in law, in justice and in ancestral truth.

Addressing the Accusations Against Itsekiri Elites
“Elite Interference Exposed: The Silent War of Daisy Danjuma, Remi Tinubu, and the INEC Delay”

The Itsekiri Public Affairs Committee’s attempt to dismiss accusations of elite political interference, specifically by Mrs. Daisy Danjuma and Senator Oluremi Tinubu as “baseless slander” is not just weak; it is deliberately dishonest and characteristic of the decades-long pattern of denial, deflection and manipulation that has kept justice suspended in Warri. These names were not plucked from thin air, they were mentioned because historical experience, insider leaks and visible political alignments have repeatedly shown how elite Itsekiri figures with access to central power leverage that access to stall processes that threaten their inherited advantage.

To pretend, as IPAC does, that the Itsekiri elite “do not lobby,” but “rely on history and law,” is a grand joke. Was it history that got the Olu’s title changed in 1952, against the protests of every neighboring ethnic group? No. It was elite lobbying of colonial administrators by Itsekiri agents like Chief Hussey and Dore Numa that led to the fraudulent title “Olu of Warri” being inserted into official records, a title which even the then-Governor warned might “inflame the tribal situation in Warri” (CO 554/120/5, 1952).

The same playbook is in use today. The Premium Times report of March 3, 2024, didn’t invent the whispers; it amplified what insiders across Delta State already knew, that Mrs. Daisy Danjuma, a key Itsekiri matriarch with oil and political interests, had been actively lobbying to frustrate the release of the final delineation result. Sources within INEC and political circles cited “direct calls, elite dinners, and Abuja channels being used to buy time.” These are not fabrications. These are established patterns of manipulation through elite back channels, a continuation of the same tactics that delayed justice in 1997, 1999, and 2003, each time Warri was thrown into chaos just when the Ijaw demanded fairness.

Let’s not forget the 2003 crisis, when the Ijaw demanded reconfiguration of wards. The violence that followed did not emerge from the creeks, it was coordinated in palaces and conference rooms. That crisis was not a spontaneous reaction. It was engineered resistance to fairness.

And today, what has changed? The Ijaw took the matter to court. The Supreme Court, in Timinimi v. INEC (SC/CV/1033/2023), ruled decisively that a fresh ward delineation must be conducted in Warri Federal Constituency. INEC complied, public hearings were held, demographic surveys conducted. But then, silence. Over a year later, INEC has not published the final result. Why? What is INEC afraid of? Who is calling them at night?

It is not enough for IPAC to declare that “no evidence links Daisy Danjuma or Oluremi Tinubu.” That is convenient. Evidence of high-level interference rarely comes with a signed affidavit. It comes through sudden bureaucratic paralysis, through “internal review” excuses, through quiet delays that defy logic and law. It comes through silence after a Supreme Court order. That silence is evidence in itself.

And what of the Itsekiri demand for “Warri State”? That proposal, submitted at the South-South Zonal Hearing by Chief Edward Ekpoko, is itself a coded rejection of coexistence. You demand a mono-ethnic state in a historically multi-ethnic constituency, while claiming to embrace delineation? The contradiction is glaring. If the Itsekiri truly respected equity, they would welcome delineation, not fear it.

On the accusation of Ijaw “militias” and “gunrunners,” IPAC once again reaches for lazy tropes. This old propaganda used since the 1990s portrays the Ijaw struggle as criminal to discredit legitimate agitation for justice. But who are the real economic saboteurs?

The Niger Delta has suffered from a small elite cartel who weaponize ethnicity to protect oil wealth and electoral dominance. The Itsekiri elite have benefitted from this arrangement more than any other group per capita. To now pretend they have clean hands in the stalling of delineation is the height of hypocrisy.

The Ijaw people do not need to fabricate enemies. They have lived this marginalization. They have taken the legal path. They won in court. And they are now demanding that the judgment be implemented, not distorted.

Until the final delineation result is released, no one should preach fairness. Until the ethnic imbalance of 8 Itsekiri wards to 2 Ijaw wards is corrected, no one should lecture about “equity.” And until elite manipulation, whether by Daisy Danjuma or anyone else is acknowledged and ended, there will be no peace under pretense.

This is not slander. This is history. This is evidence. This is resistance.

The OPC’s Role: A Mischaracterized Ally
“Who Invited the Outsiders? The Illegitimacy of OPC Involvement in Warri’s Electoral Justice”

The IPAC’s defense of the Oodua People’s Congress (OPC) in the Warri matter is not only a blatant insult to indigenous self-determination, it is a dangerous validation of ethnic imperialism disguised as legal commentary. The claim that OPC’s meddling is rooted in “shared Yoruba heritage” with the Itsekiri is precisely the problem, it is the very logic of ethnic ganging-up that has for decades emboldened Itsekiri elites to deny the Ijaw and Urhobo peoples their rightful place in Warri.

Let it be declared, OPC has no stake, no locus and no legitimacy to comment on the internal delineation process of Warri Federal Constituency. This is not Yoruba land. This is not Ijebu, Mahin or Ile-Ife. This is Ijaw, Urhobo and Itshekiri territory, geographically, politically and historically. For OPC to issue statements about INEC ward delineation in Warri is equivalent to the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) issuing decrees on the boundaries of Ibadan South-West or the stool of the Ooni of Ife. It is absurd, insulting and colonial in spirit.

The IPAC argues that OPC’s concern over “renaming Itsekiri communities” is valid. But let us ask: what communities are they talking about? Ugborodo? Omadino? These are not ancient sovereign towns; they are fishing settlements established in the 19th century, some of which were leased to colonial companies by Itsekiri agents acting on disputed titles. The Ijaw and have legitimate claims to these zones as documented in multiple petitions and court affidavits dating back to the 1950s. So if INEC’s delineation effort reaffirms the demographic reality, what right does OPC have to intervene?

And then the most ludicrous claim: that OPC’s reference to Ometa v. Dore Numa (1926) is “a defense of legal precedent.” No, it is a defense of colonial land fraud. Ometa was not a judgment affirming true customary ownership, it was a verdict based on colonial leases executed by Dore Numa, a British native agent who infamously leased lands he did not own. Even Colonial File CSO 26/6/08549 warns that:

“Dore Numa’s leases were often executed without consultation of local chiefs, particularly from the Ijo and Urhobo clans.”

Let the OPC produce a single judgment post-independence where Ometa was used to conclusively strip Ijaw or Urhobo of ancestral land in Warri. They cannot. Because Ometa has been widely discredited as a product of colonial convenience, not indigenous truth.

Now, let’s be honest: why is OPC involved at all? Is this about legal precedent or ethnic muscle? The OPC is a Yoruba nationalist militia, not a constitutional institution. Their mandate is to protect Yoruba interests in Yoruba land, not to act as an ethnic backup choir for the Itsekiri monarchy. Their statement was not legal commentary; it was political signaling, aimed at intimidating INEC into abandoning its Supreme Court-mandated duty.

And IPAC dares to call the Ijaw warning of “consequences” reckless? No, the recklessness lies in inviting external tribal actors into a multi-ethnic powder keg already struggling under years of ethnic imbalance. The Ijaw people have not declared war. They have won in court. They have followed legal procedure, from Timinimi v. INEC to submissions before INEC field offices. What they will not do is allow anyone, not OPC, not IPAC, not shadowy palace agents to use media noise and ethnic intimidation to suppress the truth.

Let the world remember: the Warri crises of 1997 and 2003 were not caused by the Ijaw. They were triggered by deliberate political manipulation, ward imbalances and resistance to justice. In fact, in the 2003 Human Rights Watch report on the Warri crisis, it was clearly stated that:

“The resistance to restructuring the ward boundaries, despite court orders was a principal cause of ethnic escalation. The Itsekiri elites feared democratic disadvantage.”

If peace is to be maintained, then let those who demand justice not be called agitators. Let those who threaten INEC with elite sabotage and external voices like OPC not be called patriots. And let those who won at the Supreme Court not be asked to “wait” while illegitimate voices crowd the conversation.

The OPC must be told in clear terms, you have no stake here. Warri is not Yoruba land. Warri’s story will be written by its sons, not by distant ethnic patrons with no historical or legal standing.

And to IPAC: stop dressing ethnic intimidation as legal advocacy. Stop hiding behind the OPC. If your claims are valid, meet us in court, not in Tribune columns or Lagos war rooms.

The Itsekiri Counter-Case: Warri as Iwere
“The Invention of Iwere: How the Itsekiri Created a Kingdom to Justify Land Claims”

The so-called “Itsekiri Counter-Case” claiming Warri as “Iwere” established by Olu Ginuwa in the 15th century is a tired myth wrapped in colonial favoritism, sustained by flawed legal precedents and now weaponized as justification for ethnic dominance. The claim that Warri township is the ancient heart of an Itsekiri kingdom is a gross distortion of history, law and geography. The Itsekiri were not founders, they were guests, interlopers and later colonial collaborators who strategically exploited British indirect rule to inflate ceremonial leadership into political overlordship. That expansionist narrative ends now.

Let’s begin with the legal cases IPAC parades as “proof” of ownership: Ometa v. Chief Dore Numa (1926) and Omagbemi v. Chief Dore Numa (1923) were not customary land ownership cases, they were land lease disputes involving a British-appointed native agent, Dore Numa, who operated more like a land broker than a traditional chief. These decisions, rendered during colonialism, were based on the presumption that Dore Numa held absolute authority to lease lands on behalf of the Olu, a claim challenged by several Ijaw and Urhobo chiefs at the time.

In CSO 26/6/08549, the colonial administration admits that:

“Land leases signed by Chief Dore Numa were executed in many cases without full consultation of other local communities, notably the Ijo and Sobo (Urhobo).”
These admissions disqualify Ometa and Omagbemi as neutral legal precedents. They reflect colonial convenience, not indigenous customary law.

The third case cited, Chief Secretary v. Itsekiri Communal Lands Trustees (W/41/57, 1970), was rooted not in historical title but in the government’s desire to create a trustee structure for lands already in dispute. That case did not determine ownership of all of Warri township. Instead, it focused on Igbudu, a contested area with a known Urhobo presence dating back to the 19th century. Itsekiri overlordship was asserted, not proven. Even the Delta State High Court (2002) in a subsequent land dispute involving Igbudu noted that “ownership questions remain unresolved due to overlapping claims and contradictory leases inherited from the colonial era.”

As for CO 554/124/3 (1938), IPAC misrepresents its content. That file distinguishes between Itsekiri-controlled hamlets (like Ode-Itsekiri) and multi-ethnic urban Warri, which included Ijaw, Urhobo and Itsekiri settlements. It explicitly states:

“The Olu’s influence is recognized in Itsekiri areas but Ijaw and Sobo groups maintain distinct authorities in adjacent territories and reject his overlordship.”

That is not affirmation of ownership, it is recognition of ethnic coexistence, not Itsekiri dominion.

The claim that Warri township is Itsekiri “ancestral land” collapses under basic scrutiny. Take Okere today claimed by the Itsekiri. In Ojakovo v. Ajomiwe (1961), the court upheld Urhobo possessory rights to over 210 acres of land in Okere, defeating Itsekiri attempts to assert overriding control. If Warri township were truly “Iwere” under a pre-existing Itsekiri kingdom, how could Urhobo litigants have secured victories in land disputes in the heart of the so-called “kingdom”? The answer is clear: no such kingdom ever existed in the legal or historical sense.

Then comes their appeal to Prof. Obaro Ikime, a respected historian whose words they butcher. Prof. Ikime, in Groundwork of Nigerian History (1980), emphasized that the Olu institution was a political convenience, not an ancient royal establishment with dominion over the multi-ethnic Warri territory. He wrote:

“The British formalized the Olu’s title for administrative ease. The territory was ethnically diverse, with overlapping systems of governance.”
This quote directly dismantles IPAC’s attempt to paint Warri as a culturally homogeneous Itsekiri enclave.

Even the Delta State Traditional Rulers Council and Chiefs Edict (1998), which IPAC deceptively uses, explicitly states that the Olu’s jurisdiction is over Itsekiri-speaking areas. The same law excludes Urhobo and Ijaw lands from the Olu’s rulership, a fact they attempt to bury under grand titles and revisionist narratives.

The Itsekiri cannot deny the following:

The Olu’s authority was never accepted by Ijaw or Urhobo communities.

No single Supreme Court ruling has affirmed Itsekiri sovereignty over Warri township as a whole.

Colonial records consistently describe Warri as a plural territory with competing ethnic claims, not a monarchy.

If Warri is truly Iwere, let the Itsekiri answer this:

Why do court rulings consistently validate Urhobo and Ijaw ownership in key parts of Warri township?

Why did the Olu’s title need to be changed in 1952 to Olu of Warri, if he already owned the city?

The answer is simple: Warri was never Iwere. The name “Iwere” itself is an Itsekiri appropriation, retroactively applied to bolster territorial claims. There is no ancient document, map or treaty recognizing a kingdom called Iwere with jurisdiction over Warri’s present-day boundaries. It is a myth, invented for land, power and contracts.

Today, the Itsekiri weaponize this fiction to suppress rightful delineation, secure oil infrastructure contracts and dominate electoral wards they did not earn by population. But the tide of history is turning.

No more will the Ijaw and Urhobo be boxed out of their ancestral lands. No more will colonial leases and court cases from the age of indirect rule be used to silence demographic truth.

The Supreme Court in Timinimi v. INEC (2023) has spoken. INEC has surveyed. The final result must be released. The Itsekiri can cling to their myths but the law, the land and the people demand justice. And justice is coming. 8.Our Demand: Equity and Truth

“Colonial Precedents Are Not Justice: Real Equity Begins with Ending Ward Fraud and Publishing the Truth”

The Itsekiri’s so-called “Demands for Equity and Truth” are the peak of hypocrisy built on a mountain of falsehoods, legal manipulation and colonial theft dressed as tradition. If there is one thing this generation of Ijaw, Urhobo will no longer tolerate, it is the arrogance of a minority group dictating justice while refusing to acknowledge the foundations of its own advantage, colonial fraud, demographic suppression and political manipulation.

Let’s unpack their deceit.

“Fair Delineation”? What justice have the Itsekiri ever shown when it comes to electoral fairness? For nearly 30 years, they benefited from an 8-ward structure in Warri South-West, 6 for Itsekiri, 2 for Ijaw, in a local government where Ijaw are the clear population majority. They said nothing. They fought every attempt to correct it. They resisted every call for reform. Now that the Supreme Court in Timinimi v. INEC (SC/CV/1033/2023) has ruled for a fresh delineation, they’re suddenly the apostles of fairness?

Let them be reminded: INEC conducted a lawful, transparent, community-inclusive delineation exercise across Warri South, South-West and North in 2022 and 2023. The Ijaw, Urhobo and even Itsekiri communities all made submissions. The only thing left is to publish the final report. If the Itsekiri are truly for “fairness,” then why are they not demanding that publication now? Why the sudden plea for caution? Because the final report will expose what they’ve fought to hide, that they are a numerical minority sitting on a fraudulent majority of wards.

“Respect for Precedents”? That is rich. The very precedents they cite, Ometa v. Chief Dore Numa (1926) and Omagbemi v. Dore Numa (1923) are colonial land lease disputes, not declarations of ancestral ownership. Dore Numa was a colonial native agent, not a landowner. He leased lands often without the consent of actual landlords because British administrators preferred dealing with one proxy ruler than dozens of independent indigenous chiefs. These has no relevance to modern electoral delineation or rightful ownership under Nigerian law.

The Privy Council and colonial courts may have upheld Dore Numa’s leases, but the people of Warri never accepted them. In CSO 26/6/08549, even the British Resident noted

“Objections to Dore Numa’s leases were widespread among the Ijo and Urhobo chiefs, who insisted that customary ownership was bypassed.”

You want to talk about precedent? Let’s talk about Shell v. Tiebo VII (1996) where the Supreme Court affirmed Ijaw customary ownership over lands in Gbaramatu, without a single Itsekiri witness. Or Sillo v. Military Governor (1973), where the courts upheld Ijaw ownership of Ogbe-Ijoh. Or Ojakovo v. Ajomiwe (1961), where the Urhobo of Okere won title to land within Warri township, shattering the claim of Itsekiri exclusivity.

“End to inflammatory rhetoric”? The only real violence in Warri’s history has come when the Itsekiri felt their artificial dominance threatened. In 1997, 1999, and 2003, every time reform was proposed, violence erupted. The world knows it. Even the Human Rights Watch report of 2003 stated:

“The Itsekiri elite resisted electoral restructuring due to the implications of demographic disadvantage, fueling ethnic confrontation.”

The Ijaw people are not threatening. We only demanded justice. The Supreme Court has ruled. The people have spoken. If there is unrest, it will not be because Ijaw people shouted, it will be because the system, once again, refused to listen.

“Protection of Itsekiri rights”? That’s a laugh. The Olu’s authority is already respected, within Itsekiri communities. The Delta State Traditional Rulers Law (1998) makes it clear that the Olu is a tribal monarch, not a territorial ruler. He has no control over Ijaw, Urhobo lands. He is not king of Warri, a title invented in 1952 through colonial manipulation, not indigenous consensus. Stop confusing your ethnic enclave with a kingdom.

“Transparent Process”? INEC’s process was transparent, until it got hijacked. The surveys were completed. The data was submitted. But the final result remains unpublished. Why? Because influential Itsekiri figures with links to the presidency including Daisy Danjuma and Remi Tinubu are reportedly lobbying behind the scenes. The Premium Times report (March 2024) didn’t invent this. It confirmed what we’ve long suspected: elite interference, political blackmail and executive silence.

And now, in their conclusion, they declare that “Warri is Iwere,” that “the river flows for all, but its heart beats Itsekiri.”

No. That lie dies here.

Warri is not Iwere. That name did not exist in any geopolitical or legal form prior to 1952. It was never a kingdom. It was never a monarchy. There is no ancient treaty, no precolonial map, no European explorer’s log that identifies a place called “Iwere.” It was a manufactured identity, created to elevate one group’s access to colonial contracts and political influence. Warri has always been a multi-ethnic territory, jointly owned and inhabited by the Ijaw, Urhobo and later, the Itsekiri settlers.

The Itsekiri are not the soul of Warri. They are one of many tribes in Warri. They do not own the river. They do not own the town. They do not own the truth.

So here is the real final word:

INEC must release the final delineation result immediately.

No more voter registration in Warri Federal Constituency until justice is implemented.

The fraudulent ward imbalance must end now.

The Olu must be restored to his rightful space: the monarch of the Itsekiri people only, not the overlord of Warri.

And the lies that have fueled Itsekiri dominance through titles, leases and propaganda must be buried permanently.

This generation will not inherit injustice. This river no longer flows through fiction. It flows through law, through truth and through ancestral memory.

We are not tenants.
We are not strangers.
We are the landlords.
We are the sons of the land.
And Warri shall be made whole again.

FINAL WARNING: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Let it be known across the creeks, cities and corridors of power, the Ijaw peoples of Warri Federal Constituency will no longer beg for what is rightfully theirs. We have walked the road of peace. We have walked the road of law. We have followed every constitutional path, from town halls to courtrooms and finally to the Supreme Court of Nigeria and we have won.

The 2023 Supreme Court judgment in Timinimi v. INEC (SC/CV/1033/2023) was not advisory. It was final. It was binding. It was clear. Yet two years later, INEC has refused to publish the final ward delineation result, silenced by political interference, ethnic blackmail and elite sabotage.

We are issuing this final warning to INEC, the Federal Government and all those hiding behind technicalities and ethnic manipulation:

There shall be no Continuous Voter Registration (CVR) in Warri Federal Constituency until the Supreme Court-ordered final delineation result is released and implemented.

There shall be no 2027 election process based on a fraudulent, colonial, demographically outdated ward structure.

There shall be no more submission to a distorted Itsekiri political empire built on the ashes of Ijaw and Urhobo marginalization.

CONCLUSION: THE TRUTH THAT FLOWS LIKE THE RIVER

Warri is not Iwere.
The Olu is not our king.
We are not tenants, we are the landlords.
We are not settlers, we are the ancestors of this land.

No amount of colonial leases, manipulated court precedents or ethnic propaganda can bury the truth that the rivers, creeks and soils of Warri Federal Constituency speak: Ijaw and Urhobo people are the original owners, the present custodians and the rightful majority.

We demand the immediate publication of the delineation report. We demand the restoration of political equity. We demand the end of Itsekiri domination sustained through British injustice and Nigerian cowardice.

And if this warning is ignored, let the world know, the next storm will not come from agitation, but from silence shattered by righteous resistance.

History is watching. The people are awake.
And this time, we will not be silenced.

Signed:

Chief, Tiemopere Joshua
(President)

Chief, Ebikeme T. Godstime
(Secretary)

Cc:

Chairman, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)

President, Federal Republic of Nigeria

Vice President of Nigeria

Chief Justice of Nigeria

Attorney General of the Federation

National Security Adviser