(V) THE POST DORE NUMA ERA.
In 1927 the
Itsekiri mooted the end of the interregnum which started in 1848. They wished for
an Olu to be installed. But the colonial government would not hear of it. To
them Chief Dore was Olu hence no Olu could be appointed until after Dore's
death. On Dore's death in 1932, he had to be succeeded by the new Itsekiri
Council for Itsekiri affairs while deliberations went on culminating in the
installation of Ginuwa II, Olu of Itsekiri in 1936. The Itsekiris had asked,
and the colonial government had refused, notwithstanding all that had gone
before, to style the Olu, Olu of Warri. The refusal of the British to style the
monarch Olu of Warri instead of Olu of Itsekiri is not far-fetched. The British
created Dore and introduced the concept of overlordship which was alien to the
indigenous communities and there was a limit the British could go propagating
and entrenching the overlordship concept after the demise of Dore. The
Secretary Southern Provices' Office recalling the situation wrote that:
"it appears by no means
certain that the Jekris have been disposed to take full advantage of the Privy
Council decision; or that they have been encourage to do so" because in
the opinion of the Lt. Governor now Sir William Hunt, "the Jekris rights
as 'overlords' of the area "are still governed by native law and
custom"
A new Olu was
appointed in 1936 as Ginuwa II. The descendants of Erejuwa I to which Dore
claimed maternal descent had been excluded. The choice was not even open to all
the descendants of Akengbuwa, the last Olu before the interregnum. It was
limited to the descendants of Ejo, the man to have succeeded Akengbuwa.
In 1936 one Edema
Arubi purporting to be acting for the Olu of Itsekiri, Ginuwa II addressed two
petitions to His Excellency the Governor, Sir Bernard Bourdillon and to the
Honourable, the Chief Secretary to the Government requesting that the Olu be
made a first class chief and that his title be changed to Olu of Warri. The
Acting Secretary, Southern Provinces, Enugu, commented inter alia to the Chief
Secretary to the Government reference S.P.11328/213 of 14th May, 1936.
"During a recent visit to
Warri His Honour was told by the Honourable Mr. A. Egbe that he and other
Itsekiri leaders of the progressive element were seriously perturbed at the
influence which Mr. Edema Arubi held or was attempting to hold over the Olu and
elder members of the Itsekiri Council, and with the reactionary advice which
Mr. Arubi was giving them….. He is, they say, advising the Olu to persit in
claims to zerainty over Sobos and Ijohs, which as Mr. Egbe points out, is a
claim which the Itsekiri people themselves realise they cannot sustain. The
more the Olu claims in this respect the more determined are the Sobos to free
themselves from all possibility of domination by the Olu as they were dominated
in the past by Chief Dore."
The Acting
Secretary, Southern Provices, considered that Mr. Edema Arubi had no authority
to make his requests and continued:
"In any event, were the
request to come from the Olu and Council His Honour would not recommend them…
As regards the second request, Warri is the largest town in Itsekiri land, but
it is comparatively recent. There is no historical claim to the title Olu of
Warri and Warri is a township over which the Olu has no administrative control.
The Warri lands have been for many years a bone of contention between Itsekiris
and Sobos. The recent Privy Council decision adjudged the land not to be Sobo -
and the claim to be "Olu of Warri" is made to flaunt this before the
Sobos." - CSO File No. 54176.
Premised on the
foregoing, the request to convert from Olu of Itsekiri to Olu of Warri was
declined by the British who knew better having raised Dore to prominence and
now saw in the request by the Itsekiri establishment an attempt to take further
advantage of the situation.
Erejuwa II
succeeded Ginuwa II on 24th March, 1951. Erejuwa II remained in Ode-Itsekiri
for two and half months before he made or was made to take the tactical
decision to relocate the seat of the monarchy from Ode-Itsekiri to Warri City
which has now become ‘Itsekiri territory’ by virtue of the Privy Council
decision. Even then the new Olu had no Palace in Warri to settle into and he
was ironically accommodated in the private house of an Effurun (Urhobo) man who
was maternally Itsekiri. By relocating to Warri, the new Olu was making a move
as important as when Ginuwa I left Benin in 1480. Now, 400 years after founding
Ode-Itsekiri he had moved away to another land, the land of Dore Numa.
The installation
of Erejuwa II coincided with the politicking of the pre-independence era and
the Action Group Party had just been formed by Chief Obafemi Awolowo. This
party was busy soliciting adherents in order to upstage the N.C.N.C. in the
politics of the Western Region and they found willing allies in prominent
Itsekiris of that time who the party in turn bestow patronages on. As Sagay
says:
"Soon after the coronatin
of Olu Erejuwa II, campaigns for elections under the Macpherson Constitution began.
A new Political Party had evolved from the Yoruba cultural group, Egbe Omo
Oduduwa. This party led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo was called the Action Group.
As Okotie-Eboh became a prominent member of the N.C.N.C. so also an Itsekiri
lawyer Mr. And later Chief Arthur Prest, Mr. Ogbemi N. Rewane, Mr. Alfred
Rewane, Mr. Reece Adukugho and Mr. Ekwejune-Etchie became prominent members of
Action Group…."
"The Itsekiri people thrived
under the Action Group administration in Western Nigeria, enjoying party patronages."
One of such
patronages, perhaps by far the most controversial greatest single one, was the
changing of the title of Olu of Itsekiri to Olu of Warri in May 1952, which the
British had earlier refused. The Action Group Party also by its Western Region
Legal Notice No. 96 of 1959 established the Itsekiri Communal Lands Trust. Even
before their 99 year terms had expired the Western Region Government returned
most of the lands taken from the Agbarha-Urhobo by the Dore leases to the Trust.
The provisos in the law establishing the Trust and intended to limit its power to
only lands that were communally owned by Itsekiri, were ignored by the Trust
and the Western Region Government did not bother them. It was claimed that all
lands in Warri Division (the three Warri Local Government Areas) were Itsekiri
lands and the Trust acted accordingly. It practically invaded Warri City lands
where it granted leases indiscriminately without the consent of the indigenous Agbarha-Urhobo
whose lands were affected or returning 2/3 of the revenue to those who were in
possession as prescribe by law. Also, individuals, including Itsekiris, who had
taken leases from the Agbarha people prior to the inception of the Trust were
required to take out fresh leases from the Trust. Only a handful who could
resist while the majority complied to save themselves from harassment. Even
Messrs John Holt Transport Limited were in 1959 compelled to execute a Deed of
lease despite that entered into between Ogbe and john Holt & Co (of Liverpool)
Ltd. In 1911 for the same land.
It was the irony
of events that Chief Arthur Prest one of the prominent Itsekiri in the Action
Group under whose aeges the Itsekiri Communal Lands Trust was created and who
is also credited with bringing about the conversion from Olu of Itsekiri to Olu
of Warri fell victim of its fury when his private family possession was
encroached upon by the Trust. He successfully challenged the action in court. On
9th July, 1971, the court found in favour of Chief Arthur Prest against the
Itsekiri Communal Lands Trust in Suit No. W/15/1970. The Judge declared:
"For the avoidance of
doubt, especially as there are numerous cases pending in the Warri High Court
on this overlordship issue, I hereby make it abundantly clear that the
defendants have no power whatsoever in law to exercise the Olu of Warri rights
of overlordship over lands owned by private individuals and families in Warri
Division.
From all that I have already
said, I hereby declare that in accordance with Itsekiri customary law the piece
or parcel of land situate at Warri, the exact area of which is shown in the
survey plan attached to the deed of lease granted by Chief Ogbe (wronglfully
spelt Oagbe herein) of Warri to Messrs. John Holt of Liverpool Limited, which said
lease is registered as No. 9/1911 and engrossed on pages 143 to 148 Register of
Native Lands Volume 1 of the Land Registry at Warri, now kept in the Land
Registry in the Office at Benin-City, is the family land of the Ogbe family of
Ugbuwangue Warri.
"I hereby adjudge that
the deed of lease granted by the defendants to Messrs. Holts Transport Limited,
in Warri dated 8th November, 1961, which has now been taken over by the
Nigerian Ports Authority from the Holts Transport Limited as lessees, and which
said lease is registered as No. 36 at page 6 in Volume 398 of the Lands
Registry, Benin-City is Null and Void and of no effect whatsoever. I hereby
order it to be cancelled and it is hereby cancelled.
"I hereby make an order
of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing to collect
rents of any type whatsoever accruing from the land in dispute."
This judgment was
upheld on appeal. This was the beginning of the end for the Trust as it also
lost to the Ugborodo/Ogidigben people as already highlighted above. But by far
the most catastrophic and significant loss for the Trust was in Idundun v
Okumagba more popularly known as the Okumagba land case where the Trust through
the Ogitsi Itsekiri family of Okere attempted to divest the Okere-Urhobo people
(whose lands constitute 1/3 of Warri land mass) of their title to their lands
on the basis of the overlordship of the Olu Itsekiri. In a considered judgment,
the learned trial judge (Ekeruche J.) after painstakingly reviewing, at great length
all the evidence adduced by both parties, rejected the traditional evidence
adduced in support of the Itsekiri claim after observing as follows:-
"Considering first the
traditional evidence in the case, my view of that aspect of the evidence in
plaintiffs' case whereby plaintiffs have sought to establish that the land in
dispute and even also Okere Village were part of the kingdom founded by Ginuwa
I and also their evidence that Ogitsi owned the whole of Okere land including
the land in dispute in this case is that it is unconvincing.
The plaintiffs say that Ginuwa
I founded a kingdom and that before Ekpen came to Okere the area of Okere was
or would be part of that kingdom. There is no evidence of the extent or
area covered by that kingdom, nor is there any evidence going to show any act
or acts in history which made the area part of the kingdom founded by Ginuwa I before
Ekpen came there…
The evidence in plaintiffs'
case only shows that Ginuwa I when he was trying to make a settlement after
leaving Benin got as far as Ijalla where he ultimately settled, lived died and
was buried. There is no evidence in plaintiffs' case going to show that in the
process of making his settlement or kingdom he or any persons under him settled
anywhere beyond Ijalla and towards or in Okere.
I do not believe that any
kingdom founded by Ginuwa I extended to Okere. Plaintiffs' evidence and also
evidence in the whole case do not prove such extent of any kingdom founded by
Ginuwa I."
As to the veracity
of the genealogical evidence, the learned trial judge observed as follows:-
"The evidence in
plaintiffs' case is that Ginuwa I founded his kingdom about 1485 and evidence
in the case established that he got to Ijalla.
The evidence in the
plaintiffs' case is that the first of the ancestors of the Idimisobos
(Okere-Urhobo), that is, the defendants' people, to come to Okere came there
during the reign of Olaraja Arukuleyi and the plaintiffs put the time of
Arukuleyi's reign at about two hundred years ago or more. The Olu then was Akengbuwa
who was on the throne from 1795 to 1848 (see the evidence of
plaintiffs' 6th witness, Chief Begho).
From 1485 when Ginuwa I
founded his kingdom to 1795 when Akengbuwa became Olu and during whose reign
plaintiffs say Arukuleyi was Olaraja is about three hundred years, actually
three hundred and ten years to be precise.
The only Olaraja mentioned by
the plaintiffs before that interval was Ogitsi and Gbegbenu. All that
plaintiffs were able to say of Olaraja Gbegbemu's genealogy is that he is
descended from Ogitsi....
The view I take of this aspect
of the evidence in plaintiffs' case is that they are not certain about the
precise genealogical connections of the said persons and that this is so is
even confirmed by the evidence of 1st plaintiff when he said 'Gbegbenu
is a descendant of Ogitsi* I do not remember the father of
Gbegbenu.'"
After considering
the following books to which he was referred in the course of his address by
learned counsel for the plaintiffs -
(1)
"The Benin Kingdom and Edo-speaking peoples of Southern Nigeria" by
R. E. Bradbury and P. C. Lloyd; and
(2) "A
Short History of Benin" by Jacob Egharevba,
as to how Ginuwa I
left Benin, the learned trial judge observed as follows:-
"Save as to the date of
departure of Ginuwa from Benin City and his settling finally at Ijalla and
founding a kingdom, none of the books affords any reliable basis for testing
the veracity of the rest of plaintiffs' traditional evidence."
The learned trial
judge also considered a third book cited before him - P. A. Talbot's book
on "The Peoples of Southern Nigeria" - and observed
that that book only shows that Ginuwa left Benin about 1480 to found an
Itsekiri Kingdom and that nothing therein referred to by learned counsel dealt
with how Okere was founded.
As for plaintiffs' contention that
the defendants' ancestors paid tribute to the plaintiffs' family, the learned
trial judge made the following finding of fact:
"As regards payment of tribute by defendants' ancestors and
peoples, I do not believe that they paid any tribute to anyone in Okere....
The claim in Ex. 22 which was a suit commenced in the Ode-Itsekiri Clan
Court for recovery of possession of land, plaintiffs therein claimed in respect
of land known as Ogitsi Ekpen land situated in Okere Town now in
possession of the defendants as a tenant of the plaintiffs' family and also £75
mesne profit. (Underline is mine).
The suit was instituted by (1) Chief Omatsone, (2) Tsegbeyeri Awani and
(3) Pegbeti Popo (for and on behalf of the Ekpen Ogitsi family of Okere)
against Okumagba of Idimisobo.
In the first place there is nothing to show that the land to which the
claim related was not land in the Itsekiri area of Okere but land in the
Idimisobo area of Okere. As I have found in this case, the two blocs are separate,
evidence in the whole case showing that since the Idimisobos have been in
Okere, and the plaintiffs say it is over three hundred years
now, they have maintained their identity.
But the interesting point about the case - vide Ex. 22 - is that the Court
of first instance found against the plaintiffs there.
The judgment of the Magistrate's Court that heard the appeal in Ex. 22
shows that it appeared the suit was based upon an action brought as far back as
1927 in the then Warri Native Court (Suit No. 788/27) between Nikoro of Okere
and Okumagba of Okere. It is said that in that case an order was made that the
defendant who is the same as the defendant/respondent in the appeal before the
Magistrates’ Court was to pay to the Ogitsi family who were represented by one
Nikoro to whom the plaintiffs/appellants in the appeal in the Magistrate's
Court were successors, the sum of £5 as rent and that the land was that of the
plaintiffs named therein.
The judgment shows that an appeal was lodged to the Warri Native
Court of Appeal and there the President stated that 'The
Jekri and Sobos have been living together without question of paying rents to
the other and cannot do so now.'
That passage in the said Appeal Court's judgement is important particularly
as it was made in a suit instituted in 1927, and especially when one takes
into consideration the evidence in plaintiffs' case which evidence, I, of course,
do not believe, that it was in the time of Olaraja Uku who
died in 1905 that the Idimisobos ceased to pay tribute.
That the ldimisobos paid any tribute at any time to the Olu or the
Ogitsi families runs counter to the sweeping statement that the Jekris and
Sobos have been living together without question of one paying
rents to the other and cannot do so now. That statement, in my view, supports
the evidence in defendants' case that the ldimisobos never paid tribute to
anyone. Exhibit 22 was tendered by the plaintiffs."
After all these observations, the learned trial judge
thereupon dismissed the plaintiffs' claim in its entirety after finding finally
as follows:
"As between the evidence in plaintiffs' case and that in the
defendants' case, I accept and believe the evidence in the defendants' case as
truthfully stating how Ogitsi family and the defendants' people came to be in
Okere area.
I accept and believe the evidence of the defendants that three persons,
namely, Idama, Ohwotemu and Sowhoruvwe, first came to Okere and founded various
tracts of land as they said, and that all others of the Idimisobo who came to
Okere came after the aforementioned three persons had come.
I also accept the evidence of the defendants as to how and when Ogitsi
got to the waterside area of Okere and made his settlement there, and as to how
the settlement and that of defendants' people grew until they met in Okere.
As I earlier stated, I am satisfied that the defendants' people are not
Ghaminidos in Okere and never paid tribute or rent to anyone in Okere. I am
satisfied they were never tenants to anyone. I accept and believe the evidence
of defendants that the members of Ighegbodu family who went to Odion did so
freely....
I am satisfied and find as a fact that the land in dispute in this case
including the area where rubber plantations are shown on plaintiffs' plan,
Exhibit 2, and also where Madam Esale's rubber plantation is, belong to the
defendants and that they have been such owners and in possession of the land
from the time their ancestors founded the land.
The plaintiffs have failed to prove that Ogitsi family owns the land in
dispute, or that Itsekiris of Okere own the land in
dispute."
The Itsekiri appealed the decision up to the Supreme
Court and lost all the way despite being represented by legal luminaries and
important personalities like Chief F. R. A. Williams, Chief Obafemi Awolowo,
Dr. F. A. Ajayi etc. The Supreme Court ruled for the Okumagba family when it
held:
"A point which the plaintiffs and their counsel have tried to urge
on this court that because the land in dispute is in Warri and so in in Warri
Division, the Olu of Warri has right of over-lordship over it because as Olu of
Warri, he has rights of over-lordship over all lands in Warri Division. The
whole argument is erroneous. The Olu by title is Olu of Warri, but his rights
of over-lordship relate only lands of Itsekiri people and even then, there is
ground for saying that it does not relate to all lands of all Itsekiri."
The decision seemed to concur with an earlier
declaration by the British Colonial Administration when it approved on September
1, 1952, the Western Nigeria Government's recommendation to change the Olu's
title from Olu of Itsekiri to Olu of Warri to wit: “His Honour approves the change in the Olu's title from that of Olu of
Itsekiri to that of Olu of Warri. It should be made quite clear, however, that,
the change in title does not on any account imply an extension of the Olu's
traditional authority."
The Supreme Court finally held thus:
“On the whole, it is sufficient to say that most of the matters
canvassed before us were examined meticulously and rejected by the learned
trial judge for reasons upon which we cannot improve and to which we do not
desire to add except, perhaps, to say that whether taken separately or
together, none of the points urged upon us by learned counsel for the
appellants would, in our view, justify any interference with the findings and
decision of the learned trial judge. Consequently, we are of the view that the
appeal has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed…”
It can be said
that the Okere-Urhobo were fortunate because had this suit come up earlier during
the colonial era they would have lost. The Agbarha-Urhobo who were dogged and
determined in the pursuit of what they felt was rightly theirs during the
colonial era lost all the way to the Privy Council on exact same facts; this is
even more so in the face of Dore Numa’s damning admission in his letter to the
Counsel to the Agbarha people. The Ijaws on the other hand did not fare any
better. To quote Edwin Clarke:
“In Justice Atake’s wild and
false claims that the Itsekiri have won all land cases in Warri Division and
have no more to win, he cited Suit No. W/148/56 in which he claims that the
Ijaws who were the plaintiffs in the suit has no defence hence they decided to
file motion to discontinue the case having seen the formidable statement of
defence of the Itsekiris. This reckless assertion of Justice Atake is false and
misleading. It is necessary therefore to state the correct facts of the motion
to discontinue the action brought by the Ogbe Ijoh people as plaintiffs.
Strangely, on the day of
hearing the Olu, Erejuwa II, who was the defendant in Suit No. W/148/56 and
plaintiff in Suit N. w/63/58 did not appear in court, and according to the
Judge no one could account for his absence. The second surprise was that the
Itsekiri then applied to the court for leave to strike out Suit No.W/63/58
instituted by the Olu of Warri against the Ogbe Ijoh as counter claim. The
application was opposed by the Ogbe Ijoh people through their lawyer. The
application by the Itsekiri was made on 13/4/64. On 29/6/64 Justice H.W. Rhodes
Vivour ruled in their favour.
At this point, the late
Honourable Festus Okotie-Eboh, a prominent Itsekiri figure, in his exalted
position as Federal Minister of Finance, made an intervention by inviting the
Ogbe Ijoh people to attend a meeting with other Ijaw leaders, including the
late Senator J.M. Egbuson, Chief N.K. Porbeni, Chief B.K. Erebi and Chief N.
Ezonbodoh, during which he appealed to the Ogbe Ijoh people to withdraw their
action from court in the interest of unity and good relationship between the
Ijaws and the Itsekiris, for, it was only when the Ijaws and the Itsekiris work
together in the newly created Midwestern Region, that they would be able to
achieve some benefits for themselves. A committee was then set up to draw up
the terms of withdrawal. Thereafter, the motion for discontinuance was filed by
the Ogbe Ijoh people.
To the shock of the Ogbe Ijoh,
their motion was opposed by the defendants in a typical act of perfidy on the
ground that the case had been fixed for hearing in June 1964. The date for
hearing was duly fixed, although the application for withdrawal or striking out
of suit No. W/63/59 by the Olu had been granted by the same judge in the same
court.
Mr. Godwin Boyo for the
defendants asked the court to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim with costs in the
absence of genuine reasons for the discontinuance and argued that there was no
similarity under which Suit No. W/63/58 brought by the Itsekiris was
discontinued and the circumstances under which the plaintiff, the Ijaws in suit
No. W/148/56, sought to discontinue their suit.
The judge obliged him and
dismissed the claim with a condition that the plaintiffs, that is, the Ogbe
Ijoh people, were "precluded" from bringing further action against
any or either of the 1st and 2nd defendants in respect of
their claims of which specific particulars were given in the writ of summons,
statement of claims and amended statement of claim in this action. Leave was
accordingly granted the plaintiffs to discontinue the action.
The Ogbe Ijoh people and the
entire Warri community of Ijoh and Urhobo were aggrieved by the oppressive
ruling because no one could understand why the Itsekiris, who brought Suit No.
W/63/58 against Ogbe Ijoh without giving any reason and particularly when the
plaintiff (the Olu) in that suit did not appear in court and no one could
account for his absence. Clearly, it was ridiculous, unjust, oppressive and
inconsistent for the same Justice Rhodes Vivour in the same court to impose
unprecedented and unwarranted conditions on the Ogbe Ijoh people when they
similarly applied for the discontinuance of their action against the Itsekiri
people, giving reasons for the discontinuance.
It must be noted that there
were no legal arguments on the merit of the case before both sides
made applications
to the court for withdrawal. However, the issues that went on appeal to the
Supreme Court were procedural and were mainly on points of law, and not facts.
While the court precluded Ogbe Ijoh people from instituting another action
against the Itsekiris, it was the fear of losing woefully to the Ogbe Ijoh in
many subsequent litigations that scared and precluded the Itsekiri from
instituting another action against the Ogbe Ijoh people since the
discontinuance of their claim in Suit No. W/63/58.
At this point, it must be made
abundantly clear that the two cases which were set for hearing on 29th June,
1964 were never heard. Both parties, namely, the Itsekiri and the Ogbe Ijoh,
decided to discontinue their claims in Suits No. W/148/56 and W/63/58. The case
therefore remains open as to who owns Warri."
The final nail on
the coffin of the issue of ‘overlordship’ came with the passage in 1978 of the
Land Use Decree entrenched in Section 274(d) of the 1979 Constitution of the
Federal Government of Nigeria which effectively abolished the Itsekiri Communal
Lands Trust. The various functions of the Trust, including the collection of
revenue were turned over to the Bendel State Ministry of Lands. With the
passage of the Land Use Decree, it became possible for the court to declare in
Dzungwe v Gbishe & Anor (1985) 2 NWLR that "a right of occupancy
represented the nearest equivalent to rights of ownership as obtainable in the
Southern part of Nigeria". The decree in effect, killed the notion of
overlordship as it related to land with the exception of communal land which is
vested with the state government.
(II) DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF
NON-ITSEKIRI PEOPLES OF WARRI
The series of
party patronages from the Action Group to the Unity Party of Nigeria coupled
with the efforts of Chief Okotie-Eboh of the N.C.N.C. gave the Itsekiri the
opportunity to solidify their position in Warri. The obvious drive was to make
good on the claim that Warri is the exclusive homeland of the Itsekiri by seeking
government policies aimed at disenfranchising the non-Itsekiri people of Warri.
The fear of marginalization of minority groups in Nigeria was considered
serious enough to be placed on the agenda of Constitutional Conference held in
London in 1957 and 1958. One of the most noticeable outcomes of the conference
was the setting up of the Willink Commission to examine the fears of minority groups
in any part of Nigeria and to propose ways to allay such fears. The Commission
did not recommend the establishment of separate states for the minorities as
many had expected as a way of allaying the fears of minorities. Instead, it called
for the establishment of a minority area and other special areas which it
believed will encourage social and economic progress among minority groups. The
Itsekiri, through its sons and friends in government, pressed its case with the
commission and were specifically mentioned in its report to wit: .... In the town of Warri where they
[Itsekiri] number less than a sixth of the population, they consider it an
injustice that other tribes should have a vote or any say in the affairs of the
town.
The fears of the
Ijaw and the Urhobo, the other indigenous ethnic groups in Warri, may have been
discussed in the overall context of minority rights in Nigeria, but unlike the
Itsekiri, they were not specifically cited in the Commission Report. So in
1958, when the Communal lands Vesting in Trustees Law was passed by the Western
Nigeria Government, the Itsekiri readily used the opportunity, to secure control
of all lands in Warri. In 1959, the Itsekiri Communal Lands Trust (Warri
Division) was formed to implement the law in Warri. Under the law, the
government surrendered the leases of lands acquired by the British Colonial
Administration in 1906, 1908 and 1911 (which belong to the Agbarha-Urhobo), to
the Trust as the pristine landlord of all lands in Warri, including other lands
belonging to the non Itsekiri people of Warri. Many individuals were required
on the pain of confiscation to take fresh leases on lands they already owned.
The new round of efforts to control land, ignored the feelings of all
indigenous people of Warri, who as Rodolfo Stavenhagen inferred, know that "land is not only an economic factor
of production, it is the basis of cultural and social identity; the home of
ancestors, the site of religious and mythical links to the past and to the
supernatural".
The effects of the
'land-grab' were to be observed in gerrymandering - the division of an area into
election districts so as to give one group an advantage over others, and other
unfair methods of distributing political power. Under the influence of Festus
Okotie-Eboh, it was enshrined in the Midwest Constitution of 1963 that only the
Itsekiri were eligible to run for political offices in the Division. All other
people of Warri could vote but cannot be voted for. This constitutional
provision means that Urhobos like Dr. F. O. Esiri who was elected Chairman of
the Warri Urban District Council, 1954 - 1958 and Chief Daniel Okumagba, a
former elected member of the Western House of Assembly from Warri, 1955, could
no longer aspire to any elected political office in Warri. Beginning in 1976, a
number of autonomous Ijaw local government councils in Warri Division have also
been gerrymandered into districts that favor the Itsekiri.
The legal
instrument, WRLN 176 0f 1955 which established the Warri Divisional Council
stipulated that the divisional council was made up of three autonomous Itsekiri
councils viz Benin River Local Council, Koko Local Council, and Ugborodo Local
Council with headquarters at Gbokoda, Koko, and Ugborodo respectively; three
Ijaw autonomous councils namely Gbaramatu Local Council, Ogbe-Ijoh Local
Council and Egbedema Local Council with headquarters at Oporoza, Ogbe-Ijoh and
Opuema respectively. The seventh, Warri Urban District Council was reserved for
the Ijaw, Itsekiri and Urhobo who are indigenous to the Warri urban area. The
electoral arrangement for the Ijaw and the Itsekiri, thus complied with the
Western Nigeria Government Chiefs Law of 1957 Cap 19, now applicable in Delta
State, which states that "The Olu of Warri is the prescribed authority of
Warri Division excluding Egbema, Gbaramatu and Ogbe-Ijoh Council Areas".
The legal instrument of 1955, also delineated within the Warri Urban District
Council area separate electoral wards for the three indigenous ethnic groups,
including Wards C1, C2 and F1 (Government Area) for the people of Ogbe-Ijoh in
Warri. All these wards have been systematically replaced by Itsekiri wards thus
depriving the Ijaw of any representation in the Warri council. In addition,
Itsekiri villages of Ode-Itsekiri, Orugbo, Obodo and Omadino have by electoral
registration exercise of 1998 been included as wards in Warri metropolis,
solely as many Ijaw and Urhobo believed, to give electoral advantage to the
Itsekiri over other groups. The villages had been traditionally considered to
be outside Warri metropolis.
The Itsekiri says
their desires have historical antecedents reaching as far back as 1473 (that
is, over 500 years) when their founding Bini prince took over political control
of most of the Itsekiri settlements which he met within the Warri divisional
area (Ayomike, 1990:48)
It
is on this ground that the Itsekiri see the Warri divisional area as co-terminus
with Warri Kingdom (Vanguard 13/4/97, p.4). As Fred Agbeyegbe points out in his
letter in 'The Guardian' of 25/4/97,
'All through my
fifty-years-plus of existence, I, like any other Itsekiri was brought up to
believe that the Ijaws and the Urhobos are customary tenants and the Itsekiris
the owners of the land'.
Advertisements by
concerned Itsekiris have reiterated this in words conveying feelings so deep rooted
that they have transcended the realm of mere emotions and gone into the realm
of faith:
'The idea of carving out a
local government for the Ijaws from our homeland is not acceptable. We are not
against local governments being created for them elsewhere but not from our
homeland' (Vanguard 16/4/97, Warri Council of Chiefs).
The conceived
special position of the Itsekiri in relation to neighbouring ethnic groups is
what led Chief Mene-Afejuku to say in a Delta Television programme that any
child born by an Itsekiri parent and a parent from another ethnic group was
first and foremost, in despite of paternity, an Itsekiri and only secondarily
someone from the other ethnic group. This assertion in essence means the
Itsekiri are of a superior breed to their Ijaw and Urhobo neighbours. All
effort is geared toward inculcating this notion into any Itsekiri child whether
or not both parents are Itsekiri. This is the reason why you find more die-hard
Itsekiris who are of mixed parentage like the Atakes, Okotie-Ebohs, Rewanes
etc.
The Itsekiri, it
is therefore evident, are an ancient and proud monarchical ethnic group whose
sensibilities are perfectly in harmony with feudatory relationships with
neighbouring people of other ethnic groups. The Itsekiri position, or, more
accurately, situation, notwithstanding, the Ijaw/Urhobo ethnic groups have
equally strong feelings for freedom and self-determination. Again, their
position is predicated on historical and cultural antecedents reaching as far
back as 1473 (that is, over 500 years) when Agbarha and Okere Urhobo founding
fathers settled within the Warri Divisional Area. There are historical and
cultural grounds to believe that the Ijaw and Urhobo, whose traditional mode of
political control was clan based (a clan being a family of blood-knitted and
dialectally similar villages, usually under the benign control of a Pere or
Ovie) have always resented their subordination (see the several litigations
listed above, evidence that the Olu's overlordship has been perennially
disputed, even in the Itsekiri-influenced colonial courts).
It is on this
ground that the Ijaw wrote to the Head of State in 'The Guardian of 25/4/97,
asking in effect for liberation: 'We have suffered untold hardship, oppression,
denial of fundamental human rights, non-representation at Federal, State and
Local Government levels and the continued blocking of our legitimate demand for
self-determination. As a result of these we have resolved not to be in the same
LGA with the Itsekiri. Advertisements by concerned Ijaws and Urhobos have
reiterated this in words conveying feelings so deep-rooted that they have also
transcended the realm of mere emotions and gone into the realm of faith: 'Every human being has a homeland and their
Olu and his Itsekiri homeland is Ode-Itsekiri and their respective villages,
not in Warri metropolis and other people's villages where the Olu and his
Itsekiri leaders are complete strangers' ('The Guardian', 30/4/97,
statement by Otota of Okere-Urhobo clan).
The Warri Council
of [Itsekiri] Chiefs is currently sponsoring a bill to the Nigerian Senate to
create The Federal Protected Territory for Warri Division, without consultation
with other indigenous people of the area. The administrative structure will be
dominated by the Itsekiri, who are considered the minority group in the area.
The bill also calls for the creation of a Territorial Force Command under the
control of the Itsekiri to maintain law and order. Many fear that such a
command will be used to intimidate any group, most likely the Ijaw , Urhobo and
any other group who might be opposed to such a system (Vanguard, July 5, 1999,
pp. 22 -23). In effect, this suppose bill seek to legitimize apartheid in the
Warri area.
The conceived
rights of the Ijaw and Urhobo in Warri to self-rule and liberty from foreign
domination is what led D.A. Obiomah to say recently that, ‘The over-lordship institution is a jingo, a bully, a predator
studiously calling its Urhobo victims oppressors’ ('The Guardian', 24/4/97.
Article titled 'Abolish over-lordship of Olu of Warri') The Ijaw and Urhobo, it
is therefore evident, are ancient and rather republican ethnic groups whose
sensibilities are perfectly adverse to feudatory relationships with a neighbor
with feudal overlordship tendency.
We would concede,
therefore, that in its rudimentary form, the Warri problem is that of a
struggle between hegemony and autonomy, between the desire to rule or locally
govern others and the desire of these others to be free from that rule or local
government. These basic feelings would rationally be disguised through
sophistry, through gunboat diplomatic postures and through outright falsehood,
but it is the duty of justice to see through the smoke screens and to do what
is right in the circumstance.
(V) CONCLUSION
The history of
Warri is that of a small cluster of villages, where three indigenous groups,
Ijaw, Itsekiri and Urhobo, when left alone, were able to live in relative
peace, in spite of differences in language, customs and traditions. The British
intervention, early in 1900s, designed to advance British interest in the
region, destroyed this harmony. The disruption of peace began with the
establishment of a consulate close to the center of growing commercial activity
on mainland immediately north of Warri River which is present day Warri
metropolis. The acquisition by colonialists, of land needed for development of
the new township was handled unjustly not only to deny communities compensation
due them but also create privileges for the Itsekiri establishment as
represented for long by Dore Numa. The Itsekiri establishment profited from the
British presence largely through the emergence of Dore Numa as a lackey that
helped to perpetuate British interests in the area.
With the end of
British rule in Nigeria, the economically and culturally privileged Itsekiri
minority now finds its privileges and interests questioned by the Ijaw and
Urhobo, the other ethnic groups in the area. The Itsekiri reaction to the
challenge is to organize to maintain privileges by relying once more, on the
instruments of the government in power, to safeguard those interests. The Ijaw
and the Urhobo majority, nonetheless, continue to demand jurisdictional rights
for the collective good and interests of all peoples in Warri. One would have
expected that when communities are in conflict, the State as a neutral body, to
step in to restore order, arbitrate between the groups, or to correct torts
that may have been inflicted on any of the communities by the other.
What is happening
in Warri showed that the State whether it was Action Group Government of
Western Nigeria or subsequent Governments, became, for one reason or the other,
a party to the conflict by aligning itself with the Itsekiri establishment to
the detriment of other groups in the city. The government had at various times,
imposed solutions that only served to provoke further misunderstanding,
rivalries, tensions, friction, conflicts and sometimes violence between the
ethnic groups in the area i.e the relocation of the Headquarters of the Warri
South West Local Government Area from Ogbe-Ijoh to Ogidigben and the subsequent
reversal of that decision after intra-ethnic clashes claiming hundreds of
lives. The non-Itsekiri indigenous elements of Warri do not appear to be
willing or prepared to abide by measures which they regard as efforts to
enforce domination through local colonization in ways that are reminiscent of
British Colonial imperialism.
The intensity of
the conflict, on the surface, is hard to explain to writers like Lloyd and
others in the western world who consider ethnic riots as urban issues that
involve working class people. Lloyd in his attempt to explain the ethnic
politics in Warri posed the question: What had the Itsekiri common man to gain
from these struggles? The conflict does not appear to have much to do with
economic competition between the groups. Warri has not been known for any labor
unrest that arose from factory closings or evidence of businesses that are
specifically limited to any one group. As Lloyd inferred the presence of the
Urhobo has been exaggerated to create a climate of unnecessary hostility.
Neither is there any immediate likelihood that the Itsekiri will lose their
identity because of emergence of Ijaw and Urhobo as political forces to reckon
with in Warri. Nevertheless, Llyod may have sensed the real reason for the
ethnic problem, when he remarked that: "…..
one ought to look closely to see which individuals gain from exploiting this
tension and study the means by which they seek to gain their ends".
Lloyd's accounts confirm what many in the Niger Delta had known for a long time
that the common Itsekiri man, is susceptible to manipulation by his rulers. The
Itsekiri establishment had exploited the cultural affinity its ethnic followers
show for the Olu and had used the followers to defend narrow interests that are
not theirs. In normal times, the ordinary Itsekiri person relies on mutual
economic ties with his or her immediate neighbors, the Bini, Ijaw, Isoko and
Urhobo to make a living. The Itsekiri that live in Sapele, an Urhobo town are
more than those in Warri, many Itsekiri are known to flock during times of
ethnic riots in Warri to Sapele and other Urhobo towns and villages for safety.
Thus Itsekiri fears of domination by Urhobo seem to be unrealistic and appear
to be expressed out of proportion to the actual danger facing the Itsekiri.
Warri like many
other Nigerian cities has become highly heterogeneous and polyglot. The reality
of urbanization, means that the Ijaw, Itsekiri, Urhobo, and in fact, all groups
of people in Warri, regardless of race, ethnicity or religious background, must
learn to live together in peace and harmony, sharing common goals and working
for a common destiny. The medieval doctrine of feudal 'over-lordship of Warri',
imposed by the British, has long been deposed in Nigerian courts. Besides the
lack of legal basis, using the notion of over-lordship to establish privileges
for some while denying the same to other indigenes of the same area, is archaic
and has no place in a modern society. Many members of the three ethnic groups,
in spite of cultural differences and obstacles created by their leaders, much
to their credit, continue to intermingle through marriages and business
interactions, making the need for peaceful coexistence all the more imperative.
The indigenous communities can improve on this trend by coming together through
credible leaders to fashion a course of action to halt the theft of oil wealth
and to wrest the control of the resources of the area from the federal
government. The proceeds from the rich oil resources are enough to develop the
area in ways that will guarantee employment, and improve the standard of living
for all the peoples of Warri, and bring much needed stability to the area. In
essence, Warri can be used as an experiment to determine what the society of
the future will look like, a differentiated political community where
individual rights are respected and protected. The success of the experiment,
will have ramifications that go beyond the boundaries of Warri; it would have
great implications for civilization and all mankind.
REFERENCES
1.
William Moore – History of Itsekiri
2.
Professor Obaro Ikime, Merchant
Prince of the Niger Delta
3.
Obaro Ikime: Chief Dogho: The
Lugardian System in Warri, 1917-1932. J.H.S.N. Vol. 3, No. 2 Dec. 1965.
4.
Obiomah, Daniel, A. - Warri: Land,
Overlords & Land Rights (Ometan Vs Dore Numa) Fact, Fiction &
Imperialism. Warri, Nigeria: GKS Press.
5.
Obiomah, Daniel, A. 1995. Warri,
Urhobo & The Nigerian Nation. Warri, Nigeria: GKS
Press.
6.
Sagay, John, O. E. 1980. The Warri
Kingdom. Sapele, Nigeria: Progress Publishers.
7.
Lloyd, Peter. 1963. The Itsekiri in
the Nineteenth Century: An Outline of Social History."
Journal
of African History, IV, 2, 207 – 231.
8.
Urhobo Historical Society, 2000.
British Imperialism in Urhoboland: British Colonial
'Treaties
of Protection' With Urhobo Communities in "Warri District"1892 – 93.
9.
Edwin Clark - Warri crisis: Why we
must embrace as brothers.
