INTRODUCTION:
“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”
– George Orwell.
The controversy surrounding land rights in Warri, which is the precursor to the Warri crisis between the three ethnic groups of Urhobo, Itsekiri and Ijaw, has been with us for a long time now and may indeed linger on for an indefinite period. What we do not know however is the dimension it may assume in future as the issues involve remain largely unresolved.
Even though the WARRI crisis is perhaps one of the most discussed, debated, reported and misreported issues in contemporary Nigeria, not many people are fully abreast with the underlying issues involved, including some of the protagonists. The plethora of versions, perspectives and expositions put forward range from the ridiculous, the mundane to the frequent emotionally-warped accounts of the contending parties. Very seldom are attempts made to present the true facts of the story either by way of a historically and ethnographically valid analysis of the root cause(s) of the debacle or a well-reasoned presentation of recent crises events.
This presentation will attempt to streamline the origin of the Warri debacle and its ripple effect that still afflict us till date. However, it is pertinent from the onset to highlight the distinction between Warri metropolis (where the Urhobo and Ijaw co-habit with the Itsekiri) and what will be referred to as ‘Greater Warri’ (Warri Division). While the former relates to Warri City in Warri South local government area, the latter refers to the combined territories of the present Warri South, Warri South-West and Warri North local government areas which is a much larger territory. The distinction between Warri City and ‘Greater Warri’ is pertinent, as uniformed readers tend to see the Warri crisis as a struggle for Greater Warri rather than Warri City. The Urhobo claim is strictly in relation to the area constituting about 85% of the land mass of Warri City whilst that of the Ijaw relate principally to a small section of Warri City (Ogbe Ijoh) and certain other places in Greater Warri. At the other extreme are the Itsekiri claims to complete and total ownership of Greater Warri as a whole; by far the most ambitious, controversial, recent and superficially successful of all the claims. It would appear therefore that the answer to the all-important question: “Who owns Warri’ or more precisely ‘does one ethnic group own ‘Greater Warri’ ‘will constitute the most critical element in any attempt to resolve the Warri imbroglio. In its simplest form the problem in Warri is that of one of the three ethnic group’s desire for hegemony, which are in direct contrast to the other two ethnic group desires for autonomy. All these will form the basis of this paper.
This paper is segmented into the following parts viz:
i) The advent of British Colonialism;
ii) British rule in the Niger Delta;
iii) Competing claims of indigenousness;
iv) The development of the over-lordship of the Olu of Itsekiri;
v) The emergence of Dore Numa;
vi) The post Dore Numa era;
vii) Disenfranchisement of non-Itsekiri peoples of Warri;
viii) Conclusion.
(I) THE ADVENT OF BRITISH COLONIALISM
The advent of British colonialism in the Niger Delta nay Nigeria can be traced to the Berlin Conference. The conference was held in Berlin between November 15, 1884 and November 26, 1885, under the leadership of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Although controlling the slave trade and promoting humanitarian idealism were promoted as the focus of the conference, the conference only passed empty resolutions about the ending of slave trade and providing for the welfare of Africa. In truth, the result of the Conference was a method of dividing the continent of Africa between competing European powers.
The Berlin Act was an important change in international affairs. It created the rules for “effective occupation” of conquered lands, ensuring that the division of Africa would take place without war among the European powers. Through the Berlin Act, the European powers justified dividing a continent among themselves without considering the desires of the indigenous peoples.
The “Principle of Effectivity” stated that European powers could hold colonies only if they actually possessed them: in other words, if they had treaties with local leaders, if they flew their flag there, and if they established an administration in the territory to govern it with a police force to keep order under the doctrine of Uti Possidetis (‘as you possess’). The colonial power also had to make use of the colony economically. If the colonial power did not do these things, another power could do so and take over the territory. It therefore became important to get leaders to sign a protectorate treaty and to have a presence sufficient to police the area.
The Berlin Conference was Africa's undoing in more ways than one. The colonial powers superimposed their domains on the African continent. By the time independence returned to Africa starting in the 1950s, the realm had acquired a legacy of political fragmentation that could neither be eliminated nor made to operate satisfactorily. The Warri debacle is one of such fall out.
(II) BRITISH RULE IN THE NIGER DELTA
The British government (under the auspices of the Niger Coast Protectorate) assumed control of the trading areas of the Royal Niger Company in 1891 through which various indigenous African communities were made to sign treaties of protection with the British either willingly or by coercion. Before this date, there was no kingdom, town or ethnic group known as ‘WARRI’. The present location of Warri City was largely inhabited by the Urhobo clans of Agbarha and Okere whilst the riverine side was occupied by the Ogbe-Ijohs (Ijaw). These were the people the British met on ground and signed treaties of protection with. There was no town called Warri as we have today. The Itsekiri on the other hand, were largely in and around the Benin River and Ode-Itsekiri (their ancestral capital). The British met the three ethnic groups separate and independent of each other with well demarcated boundaries with non under the other’s subjugation. Thus they signed separate treaties of protection with each group.
Much as the British were determined to enforce the treaties on the communities, as events later proved, they were not acting in good faith. The rulers or elders who signed the treaties were later betrayed as 'Her [British Crown] gracious favour and protection' was not extended to them when they needed help, although they had kept their side of the treaties. Consul Hewett, in his treaty signing trip across the Niger Delta, in late 1880s and early 1890s, secured many treaties of protection, including four from various Urhobo communities in the present location of Warri City and two from the Itsekiri. The treaties clearly recognized the ownership rights of land occupied by the Urhobo communities whose leaders entered into agreement with the British.
The treaties also established that the British had consistently identified the Itsekiri geographically as people of Benin River, in much the same way as Nana Olomu and his predecessors in office, were known as Governors of Benin River. Perhaps, it is worthwhile to indicate the locations where the various treaties were signed. The treaties with the Itsekiri (which was earlier in time) were signed on two occasions, the first was on board the vessel, H.B.M.S. 'Flirt' anchored in Benin River on July 16, 1884, and the other on August 2, 1894 on board HM 'Alecto'. The British did not sign any treaty with the Itsekiri in the present Warri City because there were no Itsekiri settlements there at that material point in time.
The treaties with the various Urhobo communities in Warri City namely:
Treaty with Edjeba, March 7, 1893
Treaty with Agbassa (Agbarha), March 14, 1893
Treaty with Obodoodoo (Igbudu), March 30, 1893
Treaty with Ogunu, March 30, 1893
were signed in the various settlements where the British found them in the present location of Warri City. Armed with these treaties and those negotiated by the Royal Niger Company, Britain continued with its international bargaining that was taking place in Europe after 1884 for trading rights in Africa. The treaties provided the basis for the British claim that the Niger Delta area lay within her sphere of influence. They also enabled Great Britain to proclaim after the Berlin Conference, that it had established what it called the Oil Rivers Protectorate in the western Niger Delta.
Against the back drop of the said treaty with Agbarha Chiefs, on 16 April, 1894 a civil servant Custom Officer under the British administration, Saturino Perigrino Wilkey leased land in an area to be known after 1908 as Alders Town or Daudu or Wilkie Town, from Chief Igbi of Agbarha). The Agreement was witnessed by Lionel Holt for Acting Vice Consul and R. A. Alder. In 1905 Wilkey registered his title 12 years after when the Warri Land Registry was established as “No. 25 of 1905 and is engrossed on page 240 and 241 Register of Deeds Volume 3" by J. C. During, Registrar of Deeds. One of the witnesses of the Deed was “R. A. Alders, Interpreter to Her Britannic Majesty’s Vice Consulate, Warri”.
One interesting aspect of the treaties with the Itsekiri is the omission of the word King which presupposes that the King of Itsekiri has no legal standing in these treaties. This is not a matter of a careless omission. On the contrary, in the 1884 Treaty the word “King” was deliberately deleted from the printed form of the Treaty. This was so because in 1884, kingship was dead among the Itsekiri so the idea of a flourishing Warri Kingdom as is being propagated is a misnomer. The idea of an Olu was a matter whose discussion was forbidden among the members of the Itsekiri merchant aristocracy who usurped royal powers during this period. The 1894 version of the Treaty was handwritten and it updated the 1884 Treaty. In this latter edition of the Treaty, the King of Itsekiri was totally omitted. Second, the 1884 Treaty specified the territories of the Itsekiri. What was specified originally when the Treaty was signed on July 16, 1884, was “River Benin.” But there was an addendum dated August 6, 1884, that extended the authority of the Treaty to
“the people and country of both banks of the Escravos River, the Chiefs of which have ...acknowledged themselves and their country to be under Jakri jurisdiction and authority.”
In other words, the British signatories verified with the Chiefs of Ugborodo and other communities in Escravos River that they accepted the terms of the Treaty as applying to them as part of Itsekiri people and lands. This verification took twenty-one days to accomplish. This goes to show that there was a deliberate verification of Itsekiri territories before the treaty was signed and this did not include Warri City. The Itsekiri aristocracy would not have omitted the inclusion of Warri lands if same were part of Itsekiri possession at the time the said treaties were signed.
It is a well-known historical fact that the British were, in all their contact with foreign subjects, guided by the principle of indirect rule. In all their protectorates there was a conscious approximation of their political authority with already existing traditional authority. It is in this light that the roles and status of their political agents in the Warri Divisional Area (Nana Olomu, 1884 -1894 and Dore Numa, 1894 -1932) would be appreciated as this is at the centre of the Warri debacle.
The terms of the British treaties clearly extended to the indigenous signatories and to the territory under their authority and jurisdiction ‘Her majesty's gracious favour and protection'. In return, the protectorate was to ensure the safety of British trade and other interests in their territory. It should be noted however that where no traditional authority existed, the British usually invented Warrant Chiefs to simulate the much-needed wedlock of traditional and British-backed political power.
Before the signing of these treaties, the British had maintained a presence through its trading with the people on the coast (Itsekiri) who acted as their middle men in the trade with people of the hinterland (Urhobo, Ndokwa and Isoko). However, in order to fulfill a fundamental term of the Berlin Act, the need to penetrate the hinterland became imperative and this led to the appointment of political agents.
Before discussing the activities of the said political agents, it is perhaps imperative that we briefly highlight how the name Warri came about and the known history of the origins of the three contending ethnic groups of Ijaw, Itsekiri and Urhobo.
(III) COMPETING CLAIMS OF INDIGENOUSNESS
The dispute between the ethnic communities in Warri City reflects the desire of the parties concerned for some form of political affirmation based on ethnic identification. The identification, invariably calls for group entitlement which encourages one group or some groups to claim that a country or a region ought to belong to them and that the political system should be made to reflect this. Other groups may want nothing more than the right to participate in the affairs of the state or region on equal terms. Ethnic claims to priority are based on group legitimacy within a territory as a link to ownership. One of the most common claims to legitimacy is predicated in indigenousness, with the implication that a group that is indigenous to an area "owns the area" even if that group comprises a small minority of the population of the area. The claim to primacy by dint of indigenousness is widespread and can be a powerful political tool to secure privileges.
Although many claims of indigenousness are difficult to verify, relative time of arrival to an area remains a common basis of distinction among people. Nevertheless, the claims are usually surrounded by ambiguities that are couched in legends. The legends tend to associate people with places in order to create myths of occupations, often without regard to the perennial movement of people. What you find in these stories therefore appears to be, not so much about factual history, but ideas about migration. The history of the Niger Delta is replete with accounts of series of migrations the earliest believed to be that of the Ijaw, from the hinterland prior to the arrival of the Portuguese in the 15th century. The Ijaw are considered to be aborigines of the region. It is unknown, and it is probably unknowable, for how long the Ijaw have been in the swamps of the Western Niger Delta. Their language is estimated by linguists to be thousands of years old. Similarly, the Ukwuani have been in the region for thousands of years, although influences of Urhobo and Benin on their culture are considerable. The Isoko and Urhobo are related and are assumed to have migrated into the region from various places, but principally from neighboring Benin, with whose peoples they share a common Edoid language. But the Urhobo and the Isoko are also prehistoric peoples, whose beginnings cannot be accurately estimated or dated. Neither the Ijaw, Ukwuani, Isoko, nor Urhobo know why they are called these names any more than such other prehistoric peoples as the Gallics and Slavics in Europe or Hausa and Jukun in Africa can tell us why they bear their names.
In contradistinction to their neighbours the Itsekiri are a historic people in the sense that the beginning of their existence can be dated accurately. Their existence began more than thirty years after the arrival of the Portuguese in the Western Niger Delta in 1485. Unlike the prehistoric peoples, they know how the name Itsekiri was given to them. They are a nationality that is less than five hundred years old. Unlike the prehistoric peoples who have been in the region of the Western Nigeria Delta and its geographical neighborhoods for thousands of years, the Itsekiri evolved from transient Yoruba-speaking fishing communities who were consolidated into a distinct nationality by a fugitive Benin Prince, called Ginuwa, and his descendants in the middle decades of the sixteenth century. Whereas the prehistories of the Ijaw, Isoko, Urhobo, and Ukwuani can be said to be immemorial, events of Itsekiri history are largely memorial.
Most prehistoric societies predate royalties that emerge in them. Indeed, such societies provide internal resources that allow royal institutions to develop. What is remarkable about the Itsekiri is that royalty preceded the rise of Itsekiri culture and society. Historians do not like to say that societies and their cultures were created, because they usually rise by their own dynamism. However, in the Itsekiri case, it is fair to say that Itsekiri society and culture were created by Prince Ginuwa and his dynasty. But Ginuwa was helped to survive by the generosity and accommodation of Urhobos and Ijaws. It was an Urhobo community of Oghareki that protected the fugitive Ginuwa when he left Benin and arrived in their land, across the Ologbo River, four to ten years before the appearance of the Portuguese in the Western Niger Delta in 1485. In his difficult existence in the swamps of the Western Niger Delta, it was Ijaw communities that helped him to survive.
Thanks to the benevolence of their hosts, that is, Urhobos and Ijaws, Ginuwa and his descendants were eventually enabled to build up Itsekiri nationality from the Ilajes also known as the Mahins (also called Huela (pronounced Juela in Portuguese)) and other Yoruba-speaking alien fishing communities who, to use a phrase employed by the premier Itsekiri historian William Moore, “squatted on the sea-shore near the Benin River” (see William Moore, History of Itsekiri, page 13). With the help of the Portuguese and other European traders, Ginuwa’s descendants built an Itsekiri nationality from these communities that were previously alien to the Western Niger Delta. But it must be noted that though sparsely populated, the areas of the Western Niger Delta occupied by the new comers to the region were not empty. The Itsekiris, the new arrivals, lived in peace with the Ijaw and Urhobo in several of these communities largely because at that point in time land was plentiful and there was no need fighting over it.
The Urhobos in Warri City claim that they migrated from Agbarha-Otor and Okpare in Urhobo hinterland to settle in their present locations in Warri in the 13th century. However, Moore, the Itsekiri historian, places the Urhobo migration into the Warri area during the time of Olu Irame, who is believed to have reigned sometime between 1546 and 1588:
“During the reign of Olu Irame, a fatal skirmish occurred at Agbassa-Otor, and the quarters which suffered most in casualties resolved to migrate, and so they came to Olu Irame and begged for a place wherein to dwell. He apportioned to them the place Ubumale where they built a town (present town of Agbassa) and settled down.”
If Moore's account is to be taken at its face value, it will mean that the Urhobo community of Agbarha in Warri had been in the present location for at least 400 years from the time Ginuwa arrived to settle in Ode-Itsekiri. D. A. Obiomah (Agbarha-Urhobo Historian) raises doubt about the ability of the Itsekiri monarchy to master the locality in such a relatively short time of 66 years after Ginuwa's flight from Benin. It is doubtful that the monarchy will be in any position to give land to emigrants like themselves across the rivers that separated them from the mainland; however Hubbard (European Historian) shifted the migration to the 18th Century:
“A migration occurred, probably late in the 18th Century, from a Sobo town called Agbarha about twenty three miles east of Warri in the middle of Sobo country …..[they] crossed the Warri River and by negotiations with the Jekri [Olu Otugbuwa], obtained land from them … built a village of their own which they named after hometown Agbarha (Agbassa). This is now one of the quarters in Warri.”
Hubbard did not however say how he came about his source of information and whether this was independently verified after it was sourced. It is presumed that he got his information from the Itsekiri (since there is a synergy between his account and that of Moore) but what is not clear is whether he also interviewed the Agbarhas to test the veracity of that information. Even then, the accounts given by Hubbard and Moore seem to contradict that of Sagay (another Itsekiri Historian) who had indicated that Prince Ginuwa conferred with some Urhobo in Ugharegin (Oghareki) on his flight from Benin in 1480. As Obiomah emphasized, both Moore and Sagay were probably not aware that the Urhobo communities in Idjerhe and Ughareki left Agbarha-Otor as a second wave of migrants after the Urhobo team that came to Warri (Agbassa). Therefore, if Ginuwa had conferred with and indeed received assistance from Oghareki in his flight from Benin, then it will be illogical to say that Agbassa got permission from the Olu Itsekiri to settle in Warri having migrated to their present abode before Oghareki was found and before Ginuwa left Benin. Furthermore, it will be ridiculous and bemusing that the Itsekiri will give permission to the Agbarhas to dwell on their ‘choice land’ whilst they themselves dwell in the creeks and swamps. If this is indeed correct then it will be a case of unrivalled benevolence. The oral traditions of Ijaw and Itsekiri also suggest that Prince Ginuwa and his entourage had traveled up the Forcados river from an earlier settlement of the Iduwini town of Amatu, an Ijaw homeland to Ode-Itsekiri.
Why are the various accounts of indigenousness so inconsistent or conflicting with one another? Perhaps, one could find some explanation for this chain of claims and counterclaims from Coser's definition of conflict: "Conflict is a struggle in which the aim is to gain objectives and simultaneously to neutralize, injure, or eliminate rivals". In an age when it is fashionable to decry colonial injustice that held people in an unhappy state for a long time, it seems reasonable to expect the parties in conflict to claim legitimacy on grounds that ante date colonial arrival and to establish connection with the soil. The situation therefore calls for investigation of the objectives and methods used in the struggle for primacy. Unfortunately, no definitive study has so far, been made regarding the origin of Warri. The use of the name Warri, loosely, especially by nineteenth century historians, has created a lot of confusion in the minds of many, including those who are searching for a solution to the crisis in Warri.
Warri is considered a corruption of ‘Iwere’, a term the Itsekiri sometimes used to refer to themselves and the capital city of Ode-Itsekiri. However, the term is meaningless in the Itsekiri language. On the other hand, the Ijaw insist that Warri is a corruption of an Ijaw word ‘wari’ meaning house. Obiomah, on the other hand, explains the origin of Iwere and Warri:
“The name Warri is foreign, like Escravos, Forcados, and Benin. Iwere, which Itsekiris adopted as part of the politics of the 1950s and 1960s as designating Itsekiri, is very likely Portuguese, a mispronunciation of Aveiro, Afonso de’ Aveiro, the earliest Portuguese explorer in 1485, in the Escravos area. Alfonso de Aveiro set up trade in Benin River between the Oba of Benin and the Portuguese. The "v" in Aveiro would be "w" sound in Portuguese. The "I" as first letter of Iwere is accounted for by the local habit among Urhobo and Itsekiri to start [foreign] words with "I." Compare Iwarri used by Itsekiri and Urhobo alike for Warri. Other examples are Idicki for Dick, Ijosini for Johnson, Ivitor for Victor, idolo for money, Iwofu for wharf, Iwaya for wire. There are several foreign European (Portuguese) words common to Urhobo and Itsekiri like esete (plate), ekanaka (jug), ukujere (spoon), oro (gold). On the name WARRI early European visitors and explorers used the name to refer to a locality from the mouths of the Escravos and Forcados Rivers into the creeks. It is not Itsekiri.”
Warri had also been used to designate a colonial province before the change from Warri Province to Delta Province. An 1891 map cited by Ikime (Isoko Historian) shows different locations for Ode -Itsekiri and the nineteenth century trading post that grew into the present Warri Township.
A most instructive insight into the indigenous people of the Warri area of the Niger Delta is that offered by a Portuguese traveler, Duarte Pacheco Perira. By Perira's account written between 1502-1505 after his exploration of the West African Coast, in 1502:
Item: "Five leagues beyond Rio dos Escravos is another river called Rio dos Forcados; its name is due to the fact that when it was discovered many large birds were found here with tails forked like those of swallow. This river has a large mouth, and to the NW it has a sand shallow with about two fat horns of water, and on the SE it has a shoal of rock on which the sea breaks; in between these is the channel, which has a mud bottom, with three and half fat homs, and at high tide four fathoms. He who has to enter here should keep closer to the shallows on the SE than to those on the NW in order to enter in safety. The tide of this river flows NW. by W and SE by E; its latitude is 50 10' N4. To the WE there is a large wood, its landmark being two trees taller than the rest. Whoever enters this river will find that it branches to the right and to the left; five leagues up the left branch is a place of barter, which consists chiefly of slaves and cotton cloths, with some panther skins, palm-oil and some blue shells with red stripes which they call "coris". These and other things we buy there for brass and copper bracelets; they are all valuable at the castle of S. Jorze da Mina, where the King's factor sells them to the negro merchants for gold. The inhabitants along this river are called Huela. Farther in the interior is another country call Subou (Urhobo), which is densely populated; here there is a fair amount of pepper of the kind we describe almost at the end of the fifth paragraph of the seventh chapter. Beyond these dwell others called Jos (Ijaw),…"
It is interesting to note that no mention was made of Itsekiri, Warri or Iwere. What this goes to show is that the Itsekiri nation as we know it today was yet to be conceived or was still in its embryonic state at the material time Perira undertook his travels. Further credence is given this by no other person than the Itsekiri Historian Moore. Moore's claim in his History of Itsekiri, pp. 13,
“That Prior to the advent of the Bini Prince Ginuwa, the territory now known as the Kingdom of Itsekiri or Iwere, was inhabited by three tribes, namely Ijaws, Sobos, and the Mahins. They [Sobos] occupied the hinterland, while the Ijaw occupied the coastline, and the Mahin squatted on the sea-shore near the Benin River.”
The absence of the Itsekiri from the records raises some troubling doubts about the importance of the Itsekiri in the western Niger Delta by 1500. However, Ryder (cited by Lloyd) believes that although the Portuguese had met the Itsekiri on the lower Forcados area, the capital city of Ode-Itsekiri was not founded until later in mid-sixteenth century. The new Itsekiri Kingdom developed for the next two centuries under the influence of the Portuguese, mainly through missionary activities, to full maturity and independence from Benin.
It is obvious that the name ‘Warri’ is not African but a Colonial name. It is also correct to state that the name was first used for the Itsekiri ancestral headquarter, Ode-Itsekiri. In 1891, the British Colonial Government moved their headquarters from Ode-Iteskiri, across the Warri river to the upland in the present Warri GRA which it re-christened New Warri, after forcefully ejecting Urhobos and Ijaws who were previously inhabiting the area (see Pretheroe's Assessment Report of Warri in 1928 Ref. CSO 26/3, File 20653). This was how the name Warri for the present Warri city came about. The use of the name ‘Warri’ has caused a lot of problems in the area up to this day, especially when used to refer to a province (Warri province), a division (Warri Division) and then the city of Warri. The New Warri township was exclusively a European town then and the neighboring town at that time was Otovwodo-Agbarha (i.e. Agbassa), the headquarters of the Agbarha Urhobo Kingdom.
(IV) THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OVER-LORDSHIP OF THE OLU OF ITSEKIRI
The aforementioned treaties provided the basis for the British claim that the Niger Delta area lay within her sphere of influence. They also enabled the British to proclaim after the Berlin Conference, that it had established what it called the Oil Rivers Protectorate. The Protectorate was reorganized into the Niger Coast Protectorate in 1891, partly to accommodate the feelings of Itsekiri traders who had complained to the British Government that the Royal Niger Company, acting through small English merchants, was taking business from them by trading directly with the Urhobo, Isoko and Ukwuani.
The new arrangement expanded the bureaucracy from one officer, a consul to a group consisting of a Commissioner, a Consul General and a team of some six Vice-Consuls and other officials. The newly established consulates included one at what was now called New Warri (Warri City), near the UAC premises, another at a point along the Benin River and a third at Sapele. The consulates were charged with the responsibility of putting into effect the desire of the British Administration to advance into Niger Delta hinterland behind the coast belt to reach palm oil-producing centres. The new arrangements further undercut Itsekiri traders and certainly did not address their earlier complaint of encroachment by English merchants.
The determination of the English merchants to trade directly with the Urhobo hinterland, posed a serious threat to the Itsekiri traders, many of whom have grown wealthy from the trade. Nana who was appointed in 1884 as Governor of Benin River, opposed the planned move into the interior and was reported to have stopped all trade in 1886 and 1892 to force English merchants to pay higher prices. Opposition to Nana grew not only from the merchants but also from those Itsekiri traders including Dore Numa, who had suffered from Nana's monopoly.
By 1891, Nana had been stripped of his powers as Governor of the ‘Benin River’ but nevertheless continued to act as one and the Itsekiri still considered him their leader. The methods the Colonial Administration used to cut off Nana's influence in the area greatly affected the way the leases for land in Warri were subsequently handled. The methods provided the opportunity for Dore Numa to rise to prominence through his opposition to Nana and the help that he gave the British in the 1894 war against Nana. Even Nana’s mother town of Effurun, more than 70 miles from Ebrohimi (Nana’s village) was also set on fire by the British in order to keep it quiet. Dore Numa also helped to put together a British expedition that was successfully used to defeat Benin in 1897, a feat that eventually led to the trial and deportation of Oba Ovonramwen to Calabar. He was awarded the British King’s medals of honor for both services and was soon after Nana was defeated, further rewarded in 1896 with appointment as a British Political Agent for the Benin River District, a kind of Special Assistant to Vice Consul, Gallwey and other British officers.
On the death in 1901 of the British Political Agent in Urhoboland (which included Isoko), George Eyube, rather than appoint another in his place Dore’s area of authority was extended to Urhoboland including Ukwuani territory by the British. The appointment of Dore Numa as a paramount chief for Warri Division and subordination of Urhobo to him did not augur well for Itsekiri - Urhobo relations (already suffering from Itsekiri desire to maintain their position as middlemen in the trade with the British) but only served to worsen them. In 1924, Dore Numa was further made the sole authority charged with nominating the Urhobo to the Colonial resident, for appointment as native authorities in Urhoboland. The District Officer, Mr. Murphy observed the impracticality of Dore's new role and cautioned in a memorandum to the Resident:
“The proposal that Chief Dore should appoint Sobo chiefs as subordinate authorities among the Sobos is I think quite impracticable. The Sobos owe no allegiance to Chief Dore who is of the Jekri tribe and any attempt to give him an artificial dominion over the Sobos would be opposed by them.”
As Political Agent, he was given many responsibilities, including the Vice Presidency of Benin River Native Council with enormous powers to try cases, the right to receive subsidies paid out of custom duties levied on European traders, and the authority to sign leases to the British Government and other bodies on behalf of various communities (both Itsekiri and Urhobo). Thus the colonial administration clearly intended to recognize Dore Numa as a community head in Warri even before his appointment under the Native Authority Ordinance of 1917 as 'native authority'.
So when the British Government wanted plots of land in the New Warri City, they turned to Dore Numa for the necessary leases to facilitate acquisition. The leases were transacted under the Public Lands Acquisition Ordinance of 1903, Clause 6 of which states:
“Where lands required for public purposes were the property of a native community, the Head Chief of such community may sell and convey the same for an estate in fee simple, notwithstanding any native law and custom to the contrary.”
In order to implement the plan for new consulates, the British Government decided to acquire land for building offices and residence for officials of the consulates. As stated above, the British decided on what is now Warri City as the seat of the colonial administration in the western Niger Delta. In order to build residence for its retinue of colonial administrators, land was required and the British turned to their appointed political agent, Dore Numa to lease the native lands. The purpose of acquiring natives land was initially for public use but this soon descended into a racket between the colonial administrators and Dore Numa whereby community or individual’s lands in Warri are taken and leased to the government by Dore for a fee. The same land is then leased to those from whom it is taken or leased to third parties without compensation paid to the original owners. Those who cannot pay rent or for whatever reasons are evicted i.e. the Ogbe- Ijohs. Even S. P. Wilkey’s land, leased from the Agbarhas was eventually taken by the government when it desired it by using Dore to lease it to itself and Wilkey was then asked to lease it back from government if he desires. This prompted the man to write a strong worded petition to the colonial government thus:
"C/L 311/13,
15 Catholic Mission Street,
Lagos 28th April, 1914
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. 354/311/1913 dated 26th February 1914, which was delivered to me whilst on the sick-list in the hospital. I regret from the above fact my inability to reply to such letter until now.
2. I beg to note that His Excellency the Governor-General has been pleased to give directions for the granting of "a new lease for the site for 50 years to date from 1894, that is 30 years from now. The rent will be a nominal one of 10/=".
3. In the above regard I would submit reference to the following facts, viz:
(a) the Government took the land in question from me on the 22nd of December 1908, up to which time I was and had been in undisturbed possession of the portion referred to in the Indenture bearing the above date, which Indenture has been duly executed and stamped, and a copy of which is in the possession of the Government.
(b) by clause 2 of the said Indenture the rent payable by me in advance is fixed at ?5 per annum, which rent has been paid for the years 1909, 1910, and 1911.
(c) the remaining portion of the land purchased by me from Chief Igbae of Agbasa was taken by the Government from me and allotted by them to other persons without my consent, or without any compensation being awarded me for such portion at that time or up to date.
THE COMMISSIONER OF LANDS,
L A G O S.
4. In the above circumstances it is not clear to me why I am now required to accept a lease from the year 1894, for the term 50 years, for the portion of land referred to in paragraph 3 (a) as intimated in your letter under reply.
5. From the fact contained in paragraph 3 (a) relative to a copy of the lease therein referred to being already in the possession of the Government, it would appear unnecessary for me to forward the original for the purpose of amendment as proposed. Furthermore I would respectfully submit that I have no intention of willingly surrendering the land referred to in the Indenture mentioned in paragraph 3 (a) or the other portion or portions referred to in (c) of the same paragraph.
6. Upon the face of the foregoing facts, and also others which are contained in my petition of the 17th November 1913, I feel it my duty to submit that, although I am bound to carry out the instructions with regard to the acceptance of a new lease upon the terms of your letter under reply, and which I shall do in obedience to His Excellency's commands, at the same time I must submit my strong protest to the course adopted, and which appears to me to offer me no alternative.
7. In conclusion, I would submit reference to letter No, B,1313/1912/479 date 21st May 1912, from the Hon. Colonial Secretary, and paragraph 3 of same. The question involved in this matter is summed up in the above paragraph and I submit, it remains to be established and proved that the transaction carried out by me in the original purchase of the entire land under dispute, was a transaction "which violates the rules of native tenure"; bearing in mind the fact that this transaction was executed in the presence and bears the signature of H.B.M's Vice Consul, under date Warri 16th April 1894.
I have the honour to be,
Sir
Your obedient Servant,
Signed: S. Peregrino Wilkey"
Before dwelling further on the development of the Olu of Itsekiri’s overlorship, it is pertinent to discuss further the person of Dore Numa.
No comments:
Post a Comment