Exposing The Fallacy Of Itsekiri Ownership Claims And INEC’s Refusal To Publish The Final Ward Delineation Report -

By Uche Alvin

MEMORANDUM

From: Concerned Ijaw Stakeholders of Warri Federal Constituency
Date: [1/9/2025]

Subject: Exposing the Fallacy of Itsekiri Ownership Claims and INEC’s Refusal to Publish the Final Ward Delineation Result

INTRODUCTION

The persistent propaganda by certain Itsekiri elites and their intellectual collaborators that they alone are the “indigenes of Warri” while the Ijaw and Urhobo peoples are “settlers” or “tenants” is a historical falsehood, a legal distortion and a moral injustice. This memorandum, drawing from the position of Late, Chief (Dr.) E.K. Clark of blessed memory, respected elder statesman and eyewitness to Nigeria’s legal history, debunks these fraudulent claims and places them in the wider context of INEC’s continued denial of justice in Warri.

Historical Origins: Ijaw and Urhobo Presence Precedes Itsekiri Migration

Archival authorities confirm that the Ijaw were the first settlers in Warri:

Warri Township Assessment Report (1928, CSO File 20653, National Archives Ibadan, F.P. Lynch): “The original settlement, which became the nucleus of Warri Township, was known as Ogbe-Ijoh, originally an Ijaw settlement, literally meaning the Ijaw fish market.”

Prof. Alagoa & J.F. Ade Ajayi affirm that the Ijaws were aborigines of the Niger Delta centuries before the migration of Prince Ginuwa from Benin around 1480.

William Moore (Itsekiri historian) admitted that before Ginuwa’s exile, “the territory now called the Itsekiri Kingdom was inhabited by Ijaws, Sobos (Urhobos).”

Itsekiris therefore cannot claim originality when even their first monarch, Ginuwa, was escorted by Ijaw canoe men into Ijaw territory (Egharevba, Short History of Benin).

Legal Records: Itsekiri Defeats and Tenant Status

The courts themselves have exposed the hypocrisy of Itsekiri ownership claims:

Suit No. W/28/65 (Okere-Urhobo vs. Itsekiri): Judgment confirmed Itsekiris as tenants of Okere-Urhobo, on land now housing Hussey College and Palm Grove Motel.

Suit No. 3/33 (Ebilo of Itsekiri vs. Eligho Dore Numa, July 4, 1933): The court declared Chief Dore Numa a tenant of Egbema Ijaw land, bound to pay tribute.

If Itsekiri cite selective judgments to label others tenants, why do they suppress these contrary rulings? Justice cannot be cherry-picked.

Colonial Reports: Warri Is Multi-Ethnic, Not Itsekiri Monopoly

British administrators documented Warri as multi-ethnic:

Pretheroe’s 1928 Warri Province Report: “The population is comprised of Ijaws, Sobos and a small settlement of Jekris.”

Senior Resident Major R.L. Bowen (16 Nov. 1944, WP 86/3): observed that Itsekiri “sly and cunning attempts to dominate Ijaw and Urhobo lands” fostered deep mistrust.

Colonial reports never validated exclusive Itsekiri ownership.

The Olu of Itsekiri: An Imported Monarchy

The Olu throne itself exposes the falsehood:

Prince Ginuwa, a Benin exile, lived in Amatu (an Ijaw town) for 40 years, married an Ijaw woman, and died at Ijala.

The title was Olu of Itsekiri until 1952 when it was deceitfully changed to Olu of Warri, a move strongly opposed by Ijaws and Urhobos.

Even Justice Arthur Prest, who once supported the change, later admitted it was a grave error, for which he was ostracized by his own people.

Moral Contradictions: Itsekiris Living on Leased Land

The claim of ownership collapses in practice:

Alfred Rewane, foremost Itsekiri leader, was buried on land leased from Okere-Urhobos.

The Olu’s palace at Ekurede-Itsekiri is itself on leased land.

If they were true landlords, why would Itsekiri elites depend on leased property for palaces, houses and even burial grounds?

6.Late, Chief E.K. Clark’s Final Submission

Chief Clark stated unequivocally:

“It is morally wrong for some people to take other people’s properties. Neither the laws nor the Government has given people the authority to do this. The Itsekiris, Urhobos and Ijaws are all indigenes of Warri and no group can claim exclusive superiority over the others.” (Daily Times, 11 Sept. 1971)

The INEC Question: Justice Must Not Be Delayed

The Itsekiri falsehood of sole indigeneity is the very poison fueling INEC’s deliberate refusal to publish the Supreme Court–ordered final ward delineation result (SC/CV/1033/2023 – Timinimi v. INEC).

Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution makes obedience to Supreme Court judgments compulsory, not optional.

By withholding the final delineation result, INEC is lending official cover to Itsekiri manipulation and undermining democracy in Warri.

Conclusion: No Final Result, No CVR

The truth is clear: Ijaw, Urhobo and Itsekiri are all indigenes of Warri. Exclusive ownership by one group is a lie buried long ago by history, law and colonial records.

We, the Concerned Ijaw Stakeholders of Warri Federal Constituency, declare:

INEC must immediately publish the final delineation result in line with the Supreme Court judgment.

No Continuous Voter Registration (CVR) will take place in Warri Federal Constituency until justice is done.

INEC must choose between law and lawlessness, between justice and selective bias.

Signed:

Chief, Tiemopere Joshua
(President)

Chief, Ebikeme T. God’stime
(Secretary)

Concerned Ijaw Stakeholders of Warri Federal Constituency

Cc:

The President, Federal Republic of Nigeria

The National Security Adviser (NSA)

The Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice