Re: Misuse Of History And The Fraudulent Change Of The “Olu Of Itsekiri” Title To Olu Of Warri -

By Esther David

How many times must history be repeated before propaganda stops pretending to be scholarship?

The claim that the title “Olu of Warri” represents some ancient, uninterrupted and territorially legitimate kingship is not only misleading, it is a textbook example of how colonial convenience was later repackaged as ancestral truth.

Yes, early European records referred to “King of Warri.” But what exactly did Europeans mean by Warri in the 15th–19th centuries? They were not referring to a defined political territory. They were referring to a trading port, not a kingdom, not a multi-ethnic homeland and certainly not a sovereign empire.

European traders named locations after trading points, not ethnic land ownership. They called Bonny “Bonny,” Calabar “Calabar,” and Warri “Warri” because that was where ships anchored. These were commercial labels, not legal or territorial titles.

To confuse European navigation names with indigenous political sovereignty is historical illiteracy.

THE 1930 “CHANGE” WAS NOT ADMINISTRATIVE, IT WAS CORRECTIVE

The 1930 change to “Olu of Itsekiri” was not a “temporary colonial adjustment” as claimed. It was the first time colonial authorities confronted the contradiction between trading titles and territorial reality.

Urhobo and Ijaw protests did not arise from jealousy, they arose from jurisdictional facts:
The Olu had no customary courts over them,
no land rights over them,
no ancestral authority over them
and no political structures binding them.

The British did what any rational administration would do: they limited the king’s title to his actual people.

That is not distortion.
That is correction.

THE 1952 “RESTORATION” WAS POLITICAL, NOT HISTORICAL

The so-called restoration of “Olu of Warri” in 1952 was not based on new historical evidence. It was based on elite lobbying and colonial fatigue, not scholarship.

By the 1950s:

Colonial rule was collapsing.

Political negotiations were intensifying.

Traditional rulers were being used as tools for stability.

So the British returned a misleading title for political convenience, not historical accuracy.

A lie restored does not become truth.
It becomes institutionalised falsehood.

LAND RECORDS DESTROY THE ENTIRE “ORIGINAL OWNERSHIP” CLAIM

No amount of royal titles can defeat land evidence.

Chief E.N. Begho’s 1948 letter applying to Chief Okumagba for Hussey College land is not opinion, it is documentary admission of tenancy.

A man who begs for land:

Is not a landlord.

Is not sovereign.

Is not ancestral owner.

This single document outweighs a thousand crowns.

INFRASTRUCTURE DOES NOT LIE

The first major urban road in Warri was Robert Road, Ogbe-Ijoh.
Not Ode-Itsekiri.
Not any Itsekiri settlement.

Urban centres develop where indigenous population exists, not where propaganda exists.

THE DORE NUMA CASE COMPLETELY SHATTERS THE MYTH

Dore Numa paid rents.
His lineage acknowledged superior ownership.
Courts recognised landlord–tenant relationships.

A dynasty that paid rent cannot become ancestral sovereign by renaming itself.

That is not history.
That is rebranding.

PSYCHOLOGICAL TRUTH: WHY THIS LIE PERSISTS

This is not about history anymore.
It is about identity insecurity.

When a people lack:

Large land mass,

Numerical dominance,

Indigenous infrastructure legacy,

They cling to titles.

Not because titles are true but because titles create the illusion of power where material reality does not support it.

This is called symbolic compensation psychology:
using symbols (crowns, names, myths) to replace missing structural reality (population, land, jurisdiction).

EDUCATIONAL ERROR IN THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT

The original argument commits three fatal academic sins: