Facts behind the Warri crisis (Part 2)

(V) THE EMERGENCE OF DORE NUMA?

It was William Moore who in his book “History of Itsekiri” called Dore “the worst usurper in Itsekiri history; like Prince Otselopun Dore deserved to be hanged”. Of him Moore also says, “the slogan against him is, “fie upon thee,” fie upon thee!” Saying “he was instrumental in the success achieved by the British government in Brohimi War of 1894” with Nana.  He also subverted the Bini people. Dore was the kind of man who today would be tried for treason. Dore did not live in Warri but came in from his own village called Odogene which he founded and lived in, coming to Warri by canoe. At page 194 of History of Itsekiri, William Moore says:

“. . . .Chief Dore Numa self-established himself as Head of Itsekiri people whereas he was never so made by the Itsekiri people, because they only regarded him as a chief created by the government in like manner as other Chiefs.”

Also at page 169 of the same book Moore records that

“. . . . he falsely presented himself by word and implication as the Olu Itsekiri by reason of his government given name of Paramount Chief. Thus he used to haul over his canoe on special occasions a flag with the inscription, “Paramount Chief Dore Numa, the Olu of Itsekiris, Sobos and Ijaws; and it was with this glossy pretension that he deceived and intimidated the old men who passed on before us, that whoever opposed him would be punished by the government and be made to suffer late Nana Olomu’s fate.”

Dore appointed or recommended the appointment of Warrant Chiefs in the old Warri Division as the ‘pacification’ progressed, and also Native Court members all of whom were under him either as President of the Native Appeal Court or as native Authority, Warri. Professor Obaro Ikime, says in his Merchant Prince of the Niger Delta, page 193: 

“. . . . in the twenties various court actions were taken out against Dogho (Dore) by these descendants (of Olu Akengbuwa) Dogho did not lose a single one of the suits taken out against him by the Itsekiri and the Urhobo. The courts upheld the prerogatives conferred by the British on their protégé. Even when the issue of the subsidies came before the Resident, and ultimately to the Governor, these officers did not see fit to put right what was clearly an irregularity. Dogho was allowed to go on receiving the subsidies due to other men on the ground that he had been doing so for many years. In 1894 Administrative Officers seemed to have listened avidly to Nana’s misuse of his power and position. In the 1920's and 1930's the British Administration shut their eyes to the glaring instances of abuse of power by Dogho. Well they might. Nana was an African Nationalist who refused to yield to British imperialist ambitions and so had to be broken. Dogho was a British lackey whose position and authority had to be upheld at all cost. Hence, despite mounting attacks against Dogho the British failed to review his position till he was removed by death in 1932.”

Ikime also gives in a picturesque manner the halo of prestige accorded Chief Dore by the British Officials as seen by a visitor Blndloss; Ikime says.

"The testimony of one Binloss, a British traveller in the 1890's gives an even clearer picture of the esteem in which Dogho was held by the British administration. The Vice-Consul (Warri) was entertaining Bindloss and his fellow travelers to a dinner to which Dogho was invited."

Bindloss wrote:

"There sat down was a Niger man attired in plain white linen whose name is a power in the Delta and whose counsel has been taken by Government in times of anxiety. His fine white gig lay alongside the bank, flying the jack above her steer; and the writer was informed that when a newly arrived and zealous official ordered its owner to abandon the use of the flag sacred to imperial service, he received a hint to let Chief Dore alone."

Dore with his flag was essentially British. As an African by birth he was to his British masters in the nature of tally card, albeit organic, to itemise the varying components of imperial territory for effective British rival claim and control.

Dore pretended to be the Olu of Itsekiri in all his litigations against his opponents when he had no locus standi to act as such. He was therefore an impostor who used his position as the political agent of Britain to great personal advantage including influencing the outcome of various judgments. To prove that Dore had no locus standi, it is reproduced hereunder a petition written by one Princess Akengbuwa to Col. Moorehouse protesting against Dore Numa’s claim of the Olu’s title:

“Sir,

With reference to our interview with you on the subject of land case between the Olu Akengbuwa family and Dore Numa which you intend to settle...the settlement cannot be arrived at if we had to sign on a new arrangement with Dore, because our main contention, which is still pending, is to restrain him from anything bearing the title or superscription of Olu Itsekiri, of which Akengbuwa was the latest holder....”

Among the royal children who signed and dispatched the letter to the Governor of Southern Nigeria, then styled Lieutenant_Governor, were Chiefs Ogbobine; Omagbemi; Skinn; Jim Ukuejuno Etchie; Denedo Etuwewe; Gbenebitse; Ekeke Ekenusi; Edu Kperegbeyi; Omatsuli Egbegbe; E. Okorodudu; Otseju Cheke; W.I., Omatsola; and W.A. Moore. As opposition to Chief Dore mounted even among Itsekiris, Sagay says:

“The Government was in a serious dilemma. So much had Chief Dore been propped up by the Residents and the District Officers that they could not afford to let the Chief down. The easy way to wriggle out of the difficulty could have been to get the Itsekiri people to appoint an Olu.”

Even the Resident after all the enquiries made soon realized the difficulties when in his 1928 report he stated:

“The net result of the year’s inquiries would indicate that an Olu cannot be appointed in Dore’s lifetime because Dore’s position has been too long established for the revival of Oluship to be regarded in any other light than that of reverse to the Ologbotsere faction which for half a century dominated Itsekiri’s politics.”

At this material point in time, it will be appropriate to hear what Dore thought of himself vis-à-vis all the lands in the colonial Warri Division. A clear insight will be the case of Olue v Edede later turned Dore v Olue (a case involving Itsekiris) where the Ogidigben people challenged his authority to lease their land to the colonial government without their consent. An excerpt from that case is instructive:

8th November 1921.

Paul for Plaintiff.

Bucknor for Defence.

“Plea:        Chief Dore is not the Olu or King of Warri. There is no Olu or King of Warri. No Olu or King has ever exercised authority over lands in Warri District. We plead exclusive ownership of the land as described on the plan.

Not entitled to any injunction. We are entitled to the full enjoyment of the land in question. Chief Dore is not entitled to be Olu. If he was appointed it was not according to Native Law and Custom…” 

“Chief Dore:       Sworn: My name is Dore Numa. I am Plaintiff in this case. I am head of Olu Family. I know the history of Olu … After Ekegua Idolu a woman succeeded … After Idolu, Shanoma and then Numa my father and I succeeded him … All these Olus have controlled the land described in the plan A and includes Ogidigbe. I remember a meeting held to find out who was to be the Olu. It was a big meeting of all the Olu Family and I was appointed Olu. This was about 16 to 20 years ago … The land described in the plan is only a small portion of Olu’s land. This action was brought by Chief Skin in my name … I was asked to sign this document on behalf of the Olu people. I got annoyed and took out this action. Marked “B” for identification. "B"” refers to an action in the Provincial Court. Skin went with the Resident to Ogidigben and reported something to me. I then brought an action in the Provincial Court. Skin first took an action at Forcados … Today when Europeans come, I the Olu give the land and we make a lease. I heard defendant’s pleas. I never heard before that I was not Olu …”

10/11/21 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY BUCKNOR:

When we came here we had fishing rights in all creeks and waters. When the Benin King sent his son to Warri District he told him to control all Jekri land.

We called ourselves Jekri. It was after we came we exercised control over what we called Jekri land … Sobos came from their country and we gave them permission. I don’t know when. The defendant’s ancestors came from Benin. When they came we intermarried and we call their issues Jekris … Jekri was the name given to those who accompanied their King’s son. The first batch which came from Benin became the owners of the land. I know Irigbo compound in Big Warri (Ode Itsekiri). They are Jekris. They came after the first batch. My father was Olu but not crowned … The Olu alone is entitled to give lands to strangers. Olu can take all the rents. I know of no case in which a stranger has paid rent and the Olu has not shared it. Koko and Sapele are included in Olu’s land. I get all the rents from there. Of European factories Olu is the lessor … Chief Egbe died a few years ago. He leased lands to Warri Stores. He had my permission … He is the son of an Olu my permission was given verbally. Ogbe leased land to John Holts but I signed on top … Ogbe, Egbe and I signed the lease to A. T. C. I gave Eric and Co permission to lease land at Fukama. Johnson has no right to lease land to the Delta Pastorate. Nana was never Olu. Many Olus have not lived in the King’s Palace. . . . I admit case marked “"D". I gave the judgment. It is only now they bring their Olu’s right over creeks and rivers. Judgment N. C. 76/18 admitted marked “E". Judgment N. C. 20/12 F. I told the Ogidigben they could give out land and take rents.”

CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED:

The King of Benin told the first Olu he gave him the land which starts from Benin River to the water and includes all Warri Province … We gave Sapele land to Government on behalf of Olu. I signed the deed … I distribute the rents from Sapele among the Olu people there. The Sobos are more in number at Sapele than the Olus. The Sobos did not occupy the particular portion I gave to Government. The land which Sobos occupy is their land and I would (not) give their land to strangers. Sobos receive share of the rents sometimes as a dash from Olu. The dash is always the same. There has never been any protest from Koko and Warri about. I told the Government I was head of the Olu family verbally. Sir Ralph Moore I told. No one had ever questioned my rights to the rents of the land. Okere asked me if I gave portion of their land to Prison. I saw two chiefs Okere and then I gave the land … I told these chiefs because they are warranted Chiefs and the latter is of Olu Family. No one from Okere protested until now … The said Government wanted to take all their lands. They asked me if I gave the land. I told them I told the Government I had nothing to do with Okere town. I signed a paper for the land. I received £20.”

From the excerpt above, it is obvious that Dore considered himself Olu by tracing a false line of succession which he was not. It is also pertinent to state that this suit was instigated by the British Resident because of the strategic nature of Ogidigben to British trade and the need to keep same from the clutches of rival European powers. The case Dore v Olue arose after failure to brow-beat the Ogidigben people to sign an undertaking that all lands belonged to the Olu (as symbolized by Dore, their agent).

Dore had earlier given judgment in the Native Court over which he preside that Ogidigben people could lease lands and receive rents. He was now forced to adopt a different approach (as he will also do in other cases as will be shown subsequently) in order to do his master’s bidding. As to Okere, Sapele and Warri City Dore’s method is to lease to Government vacant lands required by the Government, while avoiding as a much as possible built up areas. On the other hand while Dore claimed that he alone could give out land to strangers there was evidence that other individuals could do the same meaning that the overlordship and ownership of all lands by the Olu was new and not customary. He wrapped up his evidence when he said, “I told the Ogidigben they could give out land and take rents." Even the evidence of Chief Skin, Dore’s right hand man, did not improve the morass of contradictions that Dore had built up in his evidence.

CHIEF SKIN        Sworn: I know the tradition and history of the Olu … I was present 20 years ago at the meeting at Big Warri. A native Doctor was sent for and Chief Dore was appointed and he has since acted. Before Dore Iye known as Dolu (female) was Olu. Then Shanoma and then Numa father of Dore.”

14/11/21 CHIEF SKIN under examination:

I brought this action on behalf of Chief Dore. I went with Dore to Forcados and saw defendant. He told the Resident and me that Ogidigben did not belong to Olu but to Olagua Ori. I never heard that before, or about Olagua Ori who was never an Olu … Chief Ogbemini is the eldest descendant from Shegua in the male line and was present when Dore was made Olu.

CROSS-EXAMINED:    

At this meeting the Olu family were present. We admit public on coronation days. Dore has not yet been crowned … There was no Olu just before Government came. I don’t know how long without Olu. I remember Chief Nana, He did not rule … The Ogidigbes said the land belonged to Ologu Ori that is why I said they did not belong to Olu.

(BUCKNOR says that Ogidigbes defendants, belong to Olu — under sovereign powers of Olu but claim to be the owners of land and Olu cannot interfere) I cannot give a single instance in which the Olu has exercised power over Ogidigbes.”

Adjourned

(Sgd) A. Webber

JUDGE

14/11/21

Apparently there was a difficulty in this case because if the Itsekiri themselves which Dore claims to be their Olu do not recognize him as such then the issue of his legitimacy will come to the fore. Somehow there had to be a way out so the presiding Judge, Webber J. called adjournment of the proceedings to save Dore from his predicament. When Dore returned he was armed with a consent judgment. In sum Chief Dore or the Resident had shifted ground from the Olu claiming title to all land to that of Olu holding land in trust while ensuring at the same time that only Chief Dore as central authority approved by the Resident and with his consent could grant leases to aliens. The Ogidigben people were forced to accede to the said consent judgment. This fact is borne out by the fact that the nagging issue of over-lordship reverberated again many decades later in 1970 in the celebrated case of Dick v Olue where the Ogidigben people successfully challenged the Itsekiri Communal Lands Trust (a creation of the Western Region Government) on its entitlement to a share of compensation paid for land acquired by the Federal Government at Ugborodo/Ogidigben based on the Olu’s overlordship of all lands in Warri Division. The counsel to the Ugborodo/Ogidigben people, Godwin Boyo was cited by the presiding judge, Franklin Atake (now an Itsekiri frontline leader even though his father is Urhobo) for contempt based on counsel reminding court that it was acting contrary to an extant order of the Supreme Court that directed the sum of £27, 416:13s:4d be paid out to the Ugborodo/Ogidigben people whilst the balance of £13, 708:6s:8d remain in the High Court, Warri pending the determination of another appeal at the Supreme Court. Atake J. ignored the directive of the Supreme Court by ordering the payment of the balance to the Itsekiri Communal Lands Trust in another case pending before him. The attempted trial of Godwin Boyo for contempt by Atake J. was overruled on appeal by the Supreme Court for procedural irregularity because the presiding judge took on the role of accuser, prosecutor and judge in his own cause.

Denedo, Moore and Omasachiche for and on behalf of themselves and the members of Olu Akengbuwa Family sued Dore Numa. The case held at Onitsha on May 2, 1923. The plaintiffs in the case deposed that they as the descendants of Olu Akengbuwa are the owners of parcel of land known as Ogbe Ijaw and Alder's Town Warri (lands belonging to Ijaw and Agbarha-Urhobo respectively). They said the ownership entitled them to the rents and profits accruing from the land. The Judge, His Honour, Mr. Justice A. F. C. Weber ruled in favour of Dore stating that Dore and not the plaintiffs, is the person the government recognized as the head of the Itsekiris, meaning as Ikime points out, Dore Numa's appointment as Paramount Chief was put over Itsekiri laws and customs. The case was lost on appeal by the plaintiffs. However in a consent agreement, sponsored by Lieutenant Governor Colonel H. C. Moorhouse in 1924, an Olu Trust Fund was set up. The fund was to receive five - sixths of the rents, leaving one-sixth for Dore Numa.

The first case to be instituted against Dore by a non-Itsekiri was by the Agbarha-Urhobo for the lease of their lands to the colonial administration without their consent and payment of compensation. This was the case of Ogegede v Dore Numa in 1925. Agbarha claim was for rents for Leases B2 and B5 and injunction against Dore not to lease Agbarha lands without their permission. The trial judge dismissed the case off hand without going into the merit because in his view:

“The local (and legal) position of the defendant (Dore) was on 1st February, 1924 finally laid down by the Full Court in Denedo v Dore Numa. That decision has been acted upon by the Executive without any opposition or criticism until the filing of this case which if successful would strike at its very roots."

Maxwell J. went further to state:

“I do not consider it necessary to call upon the defendant or witnesses. The onus of proof is on the plaintiffs and they have in my opinion significantly failed to discharge it.”

Thus the Judge proceeded to deliver judgment on 6/11/25 in a case that opened the previous day 5/11/25. What follows is even more startling as the Judge blasted the Agbarha-Urhobo plaintiffs:

“The claim seems to me both idle and preposterous. The fact that they have made it at all (and of that I can take judicial cognisance) had caused no little local excitement and has to a certain degree dislocated trade and might even have led to a breach of the peace.”

The Judge stated that the legal position of Dore had been laid down in Denedo v Dore Numa but he failed to avert his mind to the fact that this was a case between Itsekiris to which the Ijaws and Urhobos were not parties therefore, whatever decision arrived at in that case should not be binding on them. Before now the only important legal test Dore faced was Denedo v Dore Numa and as said this was an in-house affair between Itsekiris. When the real opposition came from the Agbarha-Urhobo who were not Itsekiris the colonial administration felt it necessary to nip the emerging threat in the bud. Maxwell J. castigated the Agbarha-Urhobo plaintiffs as senile, abysmally stupid and ignorant for instituting the action. No reference was made to the evidence of witnesses called by the Agbarha-Urhobo except in partisan generalizations. The Agbarha-Urhobo called 11 witnesses viz: 5 from Agbarha, 4 from Effurun and 2 from Ugberikoko. One and all the witnesses stuck to their guns and refused to accept that the Agbarha people got permission from any Olu to settle in Warri or that they paid tribute to anyone including Chief Dore. Indeed they said that they did not know of any practice of one community paying tribute to another in the neighbourhood of Warri, Effurun, or Okere.

Ogegede was prodded to accept the same settlement arrived at in Denedo v Dore Numa (copy of judgment even admitted as exhibit) but he declined it thereby towing a line different from his lawyer who was willing to compromise on the issue by accepting the Moorhouse settlement in Denedo v Dore Numa whereby the Agbarha-Urhobo could stay on the land but recognize the overlordship of the Olu Itsekiri. This was taken to mean that the Agbarha-Urhobo could embarrass the government if they won. T .D. Maxwell had to see to it that it did not happen. The issue whether or not the court had jurisdiction to enquire into the distribution of rents accruing from the leased lands was not gone into at all. The suit was dismissed out of hand. Excerpt from the suit will throw light on whether or not the Agbarha-Urhobo were senile, abysmally stupid or ignorant as they were labeled by the Judge:

OGEGEDE: “The Agbassa people came from Agbassa Oto. Ona was one of their leaders; Another was Aba: another, Imone; I was born at Agbassa town. My father I know. He was also born there. Since I had any sense I have never heard of the Agbassa Oto people ever left Agbassa except to build neighbouring village. Rents were never paid by the Agbassa people to anyone: neither was any tribute. No one has ever attempted to drive us away from this land.”

On cross-examination:

“Agbassa people were never given permission by the Olu to dwell on the Agbassa land. The Agbassa people owned the whole of what is now Warri. When the European came here I was frightened to claim any of the land. I feared the European would kill me and take the land by force. I mean the government. I still think the government is capable of killing me by hanging or otherwise and then stealing all my land.

”OGUDE: I was born at Agbassa. The first people to settle there were Aba: Ona: Imone … All the Agbassa people agreed to this case being brought. We never paid rents or tributes to anyone: We lived died and were buried on Agbassa land. 

Cross-examination: “When the people of Agbassa Oto wanted to set up a new ruler they did not ask the Olu of Jekri for permission. When the three men named came to Agbassa they found no-one in Warri. There was no Olu. There was no one to prevent them seizing the whole of what is now Warri. It is not a fact that Agbassa people have paid tribute to the Olu of Jekri for permission to stay on their land.

OKUMA CROSS-EXAMINED: My folk came from Agbassa Oto. I am a Sobo. I see many Jekris in Warri. Formally there were none. The whole of Warri and suburbs is ours. It does not include Okere. The Agbassa did not pass the creek. Odion is Agbassa land. The people there are Jekris. They pay no rents to Agbassa people. They came there long after the Agbassa people: so did the Okere people. The Olu of Jekri came afterward too: I know the Agbassa people came before he did. Some of them went to Itele and elsewhere: I don’t know if they got the Olu of Jekri’s permission to immigrate: If they say they did they lie.

AJENELE: I live at Effurun … I was born at Effurun … going by the Sapele Road from Effurun one passes the Agbassa land. I do not know if any one had ever paid anyone any rent in respect of this land at any time. I have never heard of anyone receiving any rent for any land anywhere (sic) No one in Warri has ever paid rent to anyone. Why should they? I have never heard of anyone else by way of paying rent.

CROSS-EXAMINED: If Agbassa people were to go to old Warri and pay tribute to the Olu of Jekri I would Know. The Agbassa’s boundary is with us on the Sapele Road:

RE-EXAMINED: Before the Government came here the Agbassa people paid no rent to anyone.

IDE: I live at Agbassa … Before the Agbassa people lived there we got no permission from anyone to live there. We never rendered services to anyone for the privilege of living there.

CROSS-EXAMINED: By the Agbassa land I mean the whole of Warri ... When Chief Dore’s father died Agbassa people did not go and cut grass to show they were paying tribute. When Chief Fregene died they did not cut grass. Chief Ekene did not recently send to us to come and cut grass.

RE: EXAMINED:

If my ancestors had cut grass we would have heard.

SAM WARRI: I know the Agbassa land leased to Government. It is real Agbassa land.

AGBEDOLA: I live at Abeo Koko in Warri. I was born there. I render no service to any one for living there. I have never heard of anyone in Warri rendering any services to any one for the land on which they live.

CROSS-EXAMINATION: I am not the head man of Abeo Koko. I have never heard of any Sobo people paying tribute to the Olu of Jekri for or doing work for him. No one has ever done such a thing in this neighbourhood.

OWONYONG: I live at Abeo Koko. I was born there. I have always lived there. We pay rent to nobody for living on that land. Had any such services been rendered I would have to know.

AKPOJOTO: I live at Effurun … I was born at Effurun. I have always lived there. We Effuruns pay no rent to anyone: nor do we pay tribute to anyone for living there. I know of nobody in Warri or the neighbourhood who rendered services for living on his land. I have never heard of such thing.

CROSS-EXAMINATED: Effurun is not Agbassa land. I am not a chief. There are chiefs at Effurun. I am not a head man.

RE-EXAMINATED: If Effuruns had to go it would be the common people like me and not the chiefs who would have to go and work.

CHEDIAMUREKE: I live at Effurun … I was born at Effurun. I have always lived there. Effurun people render services to no body for occupying Effurun land. I know no one in this neighbourhood who render any services to anybody for occupying land.

PESSA: I live at Effurun .... I was born at Effurun and have always lived there. There I have my farm and house. I know the Effurun people render services and pay tribute to no one for living in Effurun on one near Warri who render services for their land.

The position of the Agbarha-Urhobo that they got no permission to settle in Warri or pay tribute to any one gets credence from no other person than Dore Numa himself. In the Warri Native Court Suit No. 788/27 Nikoro of Okere v Okumagba of Okere, the defendant (an Urhobo) was ordered to pay £5 as rent to the Plaintiff (an Itsekiri). An appeal was lodged with Warri Native Court of Appeal. The President, Chief Dore Numa himself ruled:

"The Jekri and Sobos have been living together without question of one paying rents to the other and cannot do so now”.

It is instructive that this judgment was delivered by Dore Numa after Ogegede v Dore Numa was decided wherein Dore stated under oath that the Agbarha-Urhobo pay tribute as settlers. This statement by Dore Numa later played a pivotal role in determining the outcome of the subsequent case of Idundun v Okumagba decided after independence by a Supreme Court peopled by Nigerian Justices. This suit was instigated by the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust against the Okere-Urhobo claiming over-lordship over them and their lands a claim which the Supreme Court rejected.

In another summersault, Chief Dore again in his evidence in chief in Ometan v Dore Numa 18/11/29, another suit instituted by the Agbarha-Urhobo against him said inter alia:

"Ogbe Ijoh are Ijaws. Olu gave them permission. Olu gave all Sobos permission. Olu gave Agbassa. Whatever Sobos collected in way of fish, yams, and palm nuts they brought to the Olu. I was told so. I am a successor of Olu. I have received tribute from Effurun, and all the Sobos here including Agbassa."

Under cross-examination by Zizer, counsel for Agbarha-Urhobo Dore said:

"All Sobos in Warri District render me service. They bring to me anything as tribute."

From the contradictions above it is clear that Dore was not a witness of truth but someone who acts according to how the situation suits him. At times he acts the script of the powers that be and on other occasions he follows the dictates of his conscience or desires. Due to the status of Dore as Political Agent combined with British imposed doctrine of feudal “overlordship” which made a separation of possessory title of the land from administrative jurisdiction impossible, legal actions challenging this status quo were therefore implicitly a challenge to the colonial administration, and probably fated to failure.

To buttress the fact that Dore was acting in cahoots with the colonial administration and solicited and got assistance from it in his numerous litigations, the following correspondence between the parties are instructive:

Odogene Town,  

        Warri,

        23 February, 1922

To His Honour,

Colonel H.C. Moorehouse, C.M.G.

Lieutenant Governor,

Southern Provinces.

Sir,

I have the honour to inform you that the Ugborodo land's case had been over and judgment was given in my favour by the Judge with 100 guineas costs. They have not paid the amount up to the present moment.

The people of Agbassa sued me also when the above case was on for £330 three hundred and thirty pounds being rent of their land paid by the Government for 11 years at £30 per annum. This case was dropped by them when I succeeded in the former case and for my trouble in the case the Judge ruled that ten guineas should be paid to me. This they have not paid as yet. The only land at Agbassa that late Chief Ogbe and I leased to Government 11 years ago is the land now used as the cemetery. I am not aware when the Government took other land at Agbassa.

The Government on his last tour to Warri was petitioned by the people of Agbassa about their land. The then Resident (Mr. Hives) told them that the matter did not worth any while and after some time Mr. Wood the then District Officer told them that I leased the land to Government hence they have the boldness to sue me the other day. The Judge also ruled in the Ugborodo land's case that all lands belong to the Olu and as Head of the Olu family I am therefore in charge of all lands.

I understand it is the intention of the people of Agbassa to issue fresh summons to me but at present I cannot say what nature of summons it is.

I therefore beg to bring these matters up for your information as you are in charge of this province with a view of knowing your opinion and I hope Sir you will not consider that I am troubling you. Moreover I bring up these matters by virtue of my office for all things have gone amiss in this province for the past two years.

        I have the honour to be,

Sir,

         Your honour's most obedient Servant,

(Sgd). Dore

          Paramount Chief.

Writer

A. A. Ogedengbe

Gratis

Odion Town, Warri.

Resident

Warri.

I discussed this with you. Chief Dore was present. No action can be taken until the Agbassa people make a definite move. I understand Dore has already instructed Mr. Graham Paul. I have wired to Lagos to have all deeds & c dealing with the Government acquisition of land at Warri collected to await my return.

(Intd) H.C.M. (Moorehouse)

25.2.22

However, the relationship between the British and Dore was not without its ups and downs especially as regard lands which the government encroached on without putting Dore in the know and giving him his usual cuts and which the government requires Dore to defend in court in the ensuing litigation started by the land owners. Some of these unsavory situations led Dore to make some damning admissions against himself to spite the British whom he felt cheated him. The following letters authored by Dore and sent to the counsel to the Agbarha and Okere people is most instructive in this regard:

From: Chief Dore Warri January 9th 1923.

To: Mr. S.L. Bucknor_Warri

Dear Sir,

I beg through you to inform your clients, the people of Okere, that I claim no title whatever to Okere land, either to my private capacity or as a member and representative of the Jekri Olu family. That Okere land belongs to Okere people, though the Olu of Jekri has always had sovereign rights over all lands in Warri but such rights have nothing to do with ownership or title to land.

That I have collected no rents from the government in respect of Okere lands, but a present of 20 pounds was made by the government to me in respect of the area on which the prison and gang drivers quarters are erected, and this amount I am ready and willing to pay over to Okere people.

I remain, Dear Sir,

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd) Dore

From: Chief Dore

Warri February 28th 1923.

To Mr. S. L. Bucknor,

Warri.

Dear Sir,

I beg through you to inform your client the people of Agbassa that I claim no title whatever to Agbassa land either in my private capacity or as member and representative of the Jekri Olu people that Agbasah land belong to Agbasah people although the Olu of Jekri has always had sovereign rights over all land in Warri but such rights have nothing to do with ownership of or title to land.

I remain,

Dear Sir,

Yours faithfully,

        (Sgd) Dore.

Sgd. E. G. Ajuya

Writer.

From: The Commissioner of Lands Lagos

To: The Resident, Warri Province Reference your W. 555/1923.

This constitutes an entirely new development in the history of Warri land viewed in the light of past history the action of Chief Dore is inexplicable. For years he has contested his right to proprietary interest in the land.

It is difficult, therefore to understand why Dore made such a damning admission against himself.

However, the effect of the admission would appear to be contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the "Forcados Case" Chief Dore Vs Chief Olue and others.

His honour has requested more detailed information as to the circumstance under which the letter containing Dore’s admission was written.

Would you therefore be so good as to thoroughly investigate the matter. It is suggested that an interview with Dore might put a totally different complexion on the business.

(Sgd.) W.J. Fitzagerald

Ag. Commissioner of Lands

Another memorandum from the Commissioner of Lands, reference 661/72/1923 dated 16th October, 1923 is also reproduced under:

FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF LANDS, LAGOS

TO THE SECRETARY, SOUTHERN PROVINCES, LAGOS

I attach memorandum and enclosures from Resident, Warri.

2. This constitutes a new and amazing development in the intricate history of Warri Land. The effect of Dore's admission is contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court in the Forcados case.

3. Moreover, as the whole question is the subject of litigation, the settlement will have to receive the consent of Court.

4. It is difficult to understand why Dore made such a damning admission against himself.

5. Last year Dore tried to go back on certain deeds of conveyance to Government but was unsuccessful and it may be that now he thinks he is placing Government in an awkward situation by his admission.

6. The Resident is not very informative and he does not make any comments in his covering memorandum.

7. For the moment the whole position is too vague to form the subject of a memorandum reviewing the position of Government in the light of the latest development.

8. I propose to write to the Resident for more detailed information on receipt of which I will submit a memorandum dealing with the question.

9. In the meantime I think you ought to know how this matter stands.

(Sg) W. J. FitzGerald

Commr. Of Lands

One will notice that the Commissioner for Lands wonders that Dore made "this damning admission against himself" and notes that the Resident is incommunicado. The Lt. Governor, not even the Resident, had to come down from Enugu to carpet Dore Numa compelling him to continue the litigations. Dore had no alternative but to continue the fight as the colonial government’s lackey or proxy.

In the mean time we will pursue further Dore's reluctance to pursue Suit W/25/26 Ometan v Dore Numa instituted by the Agbarha people. The letter which Dore wrote to S.L. Bucknor has come to be known as Letter 'C'. Letter 'C' in the same terms was written to Okere people as shown above. Whilst it was overlooked as exhibit in Ometan v Dore Numa it was held valid in negotiations between the Government and Dore on one hand and Okere people on the other to stave off court action. As a result in 1930 the Okere people themselves signed the lease agreement giving the land to government over which the present Okere Prisons stand, not Dore. The Agbarhas on the other hand, lost to Dore Numa in 1929, in Ometan v Dore Numa despite Letter 'C' which the court decided Dore did not understand what he signed. Dore won again in 1931 when the Agbarha people appealed to the Full Court (colonial Supreme Court).

Two events now took place. Firstly, it had been known that the exact boundaries of Lease B7 part of the subject matter of Ometan v Dore Numa were not known. Although Dore should be expected to be happy for winning all the way there was concern whether Dore would agree to sign a deed of rectification. In a minute dated 3rd March, 1932 from Mr. Shepard to the Secretary Southern Provinces he says inter alia:

"The Northern and Easter boundaries of this lease were indefinite and it was approved at Page 88 in S.P. 3958 Vol. 11 (attached) that a correct plan of the area should be attached to the original deed under a memorandum of agreement signed by the Governor and Chief Dore the only surviving lessor. That was in 1929. It took two years to complete the negotiations and produce correct deed plans.

"3. It may happen that Chief Dore will now refuse to sign the deed." On 21st April 1932 Mr. Shepheard reported to Secretary Southern Provinces that "Chief Dore has signed the Memorandum of Agreement under which a correct plan of the area of Lease B.7 is attached to the original deed."

Dore was not lying in 1922 when he informed the Lt. Governor that the only land at Agbassa that he and Ogbe leased eleven years before was that used as African Cemetery (located at present Cemetery Road, Warri), this parcel of land being only about half an acre. The plan of the leases makes it clear that Dore was telling the truth. By Agbassa land in this context he meant Lease B.7 containing Agbassa Village. The only known boundaries of this were the common Western boundary with lease B.2 and the common Southern boundary with Lease B.5. The rest then marked A, B, C, D, on the plan was open. By undertaking the survey and negotiations between 1929 and 1932 the area of Lease B.7 came into existence, effectively included among the other leases, after the judgment in the Divisional and full Courts, respectively. Secondly, the evidence of Plaintiffs, the Agbarha people in suit No. 25/1926 agrees with Dore's letter that Dore did not undertake Lease B.7 and also that he was being prodded by the Administration against his will: OMETA (evidence in Chief on 15/11/29, Divisional Court Warri).

"…When Government came they called Igbe head of Agbassa. They made a paper with Igbe which is burnt. This is a long time ago and Government have been there since. I bring this action because I discovered nine years ago defendant was leasing our land to Government. We started building again and the Resident and District Officer stopped us. We again complained to Dore and he sent the same reply. We were stopped the third time. Chief Dore arranged to meet us at Miller Brothers Wharf. We went with Chief Dore to the Resident. Dore told us that Government said he was not to give up the land and that Government would stand by him. Dore said he would see Governor but when Governor came he never went to see him so we took this action."

Esi (Sam Warri) (18/11/29, evidence in chief) "l live at Egudu village. I am Sobo. I am Agbassa. I farm near my village at Fugbe. My ancestors have farmed there. I was present at an Agbassa meeting. We were stopped three times by Government from building and we went to Chief Dore because we heard he had leased to Government. Chief Dore went to the Resident. He said that Resident told him not to mind what we said. Dore promised to see the Governor but when the Governor came nothing happened so we brought this action."

These witnesses who seemed to be reciting Dore's letter to the Lt. Governor of course did not know that Dore had written such a letter. It is also noteworthy that the cost of defending the appeal filed by the Agbarha against the decision of the Full Court at the Privy Council in 1931 was borne by the government on behalf of Dore who refused to pursue the appeal allegedly on grounds of penury. He may have refused also because he knew he had a bad case and was tired of being prodded. In a minute by Secretary Southern Provinces Sir William Hunt to the Lt. Governor on 24th March, 1932 he wrote -

"Leave to appeal to the Privy Council has been granted the Agbassahs who are said to be raising the money. Dore and the Jekris however are tired of the whole business, & say they can afford no more.

"Regarding Dore's professed inability to raise further funds Y.H. I think spoke to Mr. Bush of the Colonial Office in Lagos. Mr. Bush told me that the Privy Council was always sympathetic to anyone genuinely pleading poverty and that he did not think that Dore's case would suffer if he did not appear or even if he sent no representative but simply a letter. Mr. Bush said also that the P.C. seldom turned down a case that had passed from the Divisional Court through the Full Court without any modification. Our experience however in Nigeria in connection with land cases has not been too happy.

"Personally also I am not so sure that Dore will succeed. On Jan 18th 1923 Dore wrote to the people of Okere (p 74 in fl S.P. 90) and said that he claimed "no title whatever to Okere land, either in my private capacity or as a member and representative of the Jekri Olu family." "That Okere land belong to Okere people, though the OLU of the Jekri has always had sovereign rights over all lands in Warri, but such rights have nothing to do with ownership or title to land."

"Now on 9th Sept 1915 in consideration of £20 Dore executed a deed of surrender of a piece of land near Okere for warders quarters. A5 (1(4) of p. 41 in fl S.P. 90), but in view of Dore's disclaimer in 1923 a new deed was made between the Okere people and the Government on 27/8/30 for this same land and a piece on the opposite side of the road. The deed is B9 and a copy is at the back of S.P. 8263.

"On 28 February 1923 Dore wrote a letter to the Agbassah people in terms similar to those used in his letter of the previous month, to the Okere people saying that he as representative of the Jekris had sovereign but not possessory rights over Agbassah land (p.69 in fl S.P. 90). No judicial or official notice seems ever to have been taken of it, the land on which Agbassah Village is built and the farming land round it, more especially in view of Government's action in connection with the Okeres concerning the land for warders quarters. I suppose it is rather rash of me to write like this after learned judges have thrashed the matter out in Court, but when the Full Court talks of Dore's overlordship I wonder whether he had any more claim to lease the land actually in beneficial occupation by the Agbassah Sobos than the Oba of Benin could have to lease the land beneficially occupied by the Jesse Sobos.

"Further I am impressed by the sacrifices, made over so long a period and in the face of all the weight of several judgments of Court, by this tiny village, and their determination to make further sacrifice in defence of what they deem to be their heritage. Nor do I think that Dore and the Jekris would be as resigned to spending no money if they felt the same as the Agbassas regarding the ownership.

"However, I am perhaps talking academically, when there is Y.H.'s concrete question to answer. Personally I would be inclined to follow Mr. Bush's hint and let Dore sue in forma pauperis, sending a detailed statement of his case. I should not be disposed to spend Government funds in an action of this nature. Government to my mind should be entirely impartial in the matter. If Dore has been led by Government support in whatever way it may have been lent, to take the case from court to court and to spend large sums in fees, and if before the P.C. he should fail eventually, then to my mind the Government should recoup him for his past expenses, and generously. But unless and until judgment goes against Dore, I do not think that it is right for the Government to help him with financial or other support. It can of course retain counsel to hold a watching brief for the Crown, but in view of my S.3 p.54 I do not think that is necessary."

On 25th March, 1932 the Lt. Governor minuted inter alia "I agree with you that Dore's success is not at all assured. I think he should be advised to appear in forma pauperis if he cannot or does not wish to proceed further owing to financial difficulties." Dore Numa died on 24th September, 1932. Notwithstanding the fact that OLU FUND had been set up in November 1924 no Itsekiri took interest in the appeal. In 1933 government was forced to approve £300 for the cost of the appeal. On 12th April, 1934 the Secretary Southern Provinces recommended an increased amount of £400 to the Lt. Governor who at any rate approved £300.

From the foregoing, it is obvious that it was actually Ometan v the Crown rather than Ometan v Dore Numa. The outcome was therefore a foregone conclusion as the Privy Council ruled in favour of the Crown, sorry Dore, notwithstanding the damning admission in “Letter C”. This is the case that the Itsekiri now trumpet as the British Privy Council validation of their claim to ownership of Warri and on the basis of which the subsequently inaugurated Itsekiri Communal Lands Trust descended on Agbarha lands in Warri, leasing same to themselves and members of the public without payment of compensation to the Agbarha-Urhobo.

In the light of the foregoing, it is clear that Dore Numa was a creation of the colonial government. He was opposed by both Itsekiri and Urhobo alike. He never lost any of his cases even in the face of self-incriminating evidence. The irony is that although he was vehemently opposed and rejected until his death by the Itsekiri establishment, the same Itsekiri establishment is now ready to die defending the accidental windfall of Dore Numa’s dalliance with the British Colonialists – overlordship of Olu Itsekiri over all lands in Warri Division.

In summation, Dore Numa was used to acquire lands for Government Station in Warri by the British, and earned the stigma of a knave but was backed up and fully protected by the power of his masters. Hence as an event, Dore Numa was an expression of British Colonial interest, the tool of the Western Niger Delta peoples’ subjugation to become a part of the British Empire. The Itsekiri themselves rejected his role. However, as a result of the Lugardian policy of indirect rule the British strove to veil their interest and actions in the name of Itsekiri custom because Chief Dore happened to be Itsekiri. In this way, Chief Dore was said by them to represent the Olu to own all lands in Warri Division in trust for the Itsekiri people. Then it suited the British to call Urhobo and Ijaw lands occupied by them as Itsekiri lands under Dore's control. At the passing away of Dore, in order to lie consistently, Dore's overlordship over land was passed to Olu Fund and subsequently to the Itsekiri Communal Lands Trust. Naturally the Itsekiri grabbed it. They were rid of the burden of Dore as a person. But they acceded to his legacy of 'national' assets, the leases.