ROOTS OF THE URHOBO/ITSEKIRI LANDS CONFLICT: THE THREE TRIGGER EVENTS

 

Introduction

The perennial land disputes between Urhobo and Itsekiri communities in the Warri region are not primordial ethnic conflicts. Instead, they can be traced to three decisive historical events, each of which planted the seeds of discord by forcibly altering the political and territorial landscape in favor of British administrative convenience and Itsekiri elite ambition.

1.      The 1848 Succession Crisis and the Itsekiri Diaspora

Following the death of Olu Akengbuwa and his heirs around 1848, a power vacuum and violent succession crisis erupted at Ode Itsekiri (Big Warri), leading to the town’s near-abandonment. The surviving royal princes fled and founded new settlements closer to what is now Warri Township:

- Prince Agbamu founded Ubeji

- Prince Yonwuren founded Ugbuwangue

- Prince Ewolofun founded Ugbori

These communities, now considered core Itsekiri settlements, literally owe their existence to this internal crisis. Significantly, in later land cases, the descendants of Prince Ewolofun (Ugbori) and Prince Yonwuren (Ugbuwangue) testified in court that their lands were not held under the overlordship of the Olu, and that upon arrival they met only Agbassa fishermen in the area (as testified in court by Ugbori litigants). 

The Critical Question: If settlements founded by Itsekiri princes do not recognise the Olu’s overlordship over their land, how can Urhobo settlements that predate these Itsekiri arrivals be considered the Olu’s tenants?

2.      The 1894 Ebrohimi Expedition and the Refugee Reversal

In 1894, British forces bombarded the Nana Olomu’s stronghold of Ebrohimi, captured him, and caused a mass exodus of Ebrohimi’s inhabitants. These refugees, including Nana’s own household, were granted shelter and land in Urhobo villages such as Sapele, Amuokpe, Elume, Ugbukurusu, Oghara, and others. In fact, Nana’s son, Celeone Nana, formally applied to Agbassa elders for land to build a home in 1925 after a long sojourn in Ovwian (Asagba).

The historical irony is stark: decades later, the descendants of these same refugees—the Itsekiri—turned on their Urhobo hosts, claiming legal ownership of the very lands that had offered them sanctuary. This pattern of receiving refuge then claiming ownership became a recurring source of bitterness and litigation. 

3.      The Death of George Eyube and the Rise of Dore Numa (The “Mistake of 1901”)

Dore Numa was appointed a Political Agent in 1894 on Nana Olomu’s fall, initially overseeing Benin River District while George Eyube, an Urhobo man, was appointed as their Political Agent for Warri District. Tragedy struck in 1901 when George Eyube died in a firearm accident. For mere administrative convenience, the British merged the two districts into a single Warri Province under Dore Numa, instead of appointing another Urhobo or Ijaw successor.

Professor Peter Ekeh rightly termed this the “Mistake of 1901.” Had Eyube lived, the British would have approached him—not Dore Numa—to acquire land for the new Warri Township. Instead, Dore used his new, expanded authority to:

- Fraudulently lease Urhobo and Ijaw lands as “Olu land”

- Pose as the Olu in court to validate these seizures

- Enjoy unwavering British protection in all legal challenges

Upon Dore’s death in 1932, the Itsekiri elite swiftly appropriated his colonial-era “legacy”—including the stolen Agbassa lands—institutionalizing the dispute for generations to come even though they opposed him in his lifetime.

Conclusion: A Conflict of Colonial Manufacture

These three events reveal a clear pattern: the Warri land crisis is not an ancient ethnic feud but a direct product of historical accidents, colonial manipulation, and the weaponisation of administrative power. The conflict was ignited not by traditional enmity, but by British policy decisions and the opportunistic adoption of a fabricated overlordship by Itsekiri elites. Understanding these roots is essential for any genuine resolution.

© Michael O. Dedon (2026)

THE ITSEKIRI LATER-DAY CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP OF SAPELE: A HISTORY OF INGRATITUDE AND JUDICIAL DEBUNKING

 

Recent public assertions by Chief Emmanuel Oritsejolomi Uduaghan (husband of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan), purporting to represent the Itsekiri nation, regarding the ownership of Sapele Township are not only historically revisionist but a direct attempt to relitigate a matter conclusively settled by the West African Court of Appeal in 1942.

In a recent press release, Uduaghan issued a thinly veiled threat, warning that the Orodje of Okpe’s plan to erect a sub-palace in Sapele would be “resisted by every legal means possible” if it fell outside the 510 acres granted in the 1942 judgment. He further claimed, falsely, that “Sapele from time immemorial belongs to the Itsekiri people.”

This rhetoric ignores the unequivocal judicial record. The case of Chief Ayomanor v. Ginuwa II (1942) was a comprehensive defeat for the Itsekiri claim. The Okpe people, through their chiefs, sued for a declaration of title to all land known as Sapele Township. The Itsekiri defence, audaciously, claimed the Olu was the “rightful owner” and that the Okpe were “subjects” who owed him allegiance as overlord.

The trial judge, Justice Jackson, demolished this claim with scathing clarity. He found:

1.       The Land Was Okpe Farmland: The entire area was farmed by the Okpe (“Sobos”) from time immemorial.

2.    Itsekiri as Refugees, Not Rulers: After the 1894 British bombardment of Nana Olomu’s stronghold at Ebrohimi, “a large number of Jekkris [Itsekiri] ran for refuge to Sapele and there obtained the permission of the Sobos to settle, giving customary dashes for the grant of that privilege.”

3.      Dore Numa Was an Agent, Not an Overlord: The 1908 lease for 510 acres to the colonial government was signed by Chief Dore Numa on behalf of the Okpe chiefs and people. The court affirmed he acted as their agent, not as a representative of the Olu. For this service, the Okpe allowed him to keep £40 of the £100 annual rent—a business arrangement, not a tributary relationship.

4.      No Evidence of Itsekiri Authority: The judge noted there was “not a murmur of evidence” that any Itsekiri had ever exercised chiefly authority in Sapele before the 1890s. He dismissed the Itsekiri claims as “impudent” and their historical narrative as a “fantastic story of tradition.”

The judgment was explicit in its scope. The court granted the Okpe people a declaration of title as “the owners of that land now commonly known as the Sapele Township.” The 510 acres were merely the portion leased to the government; the title covered the township in its entirety. The judge explicitly rejected the idea that the township boundary was a property divide, stating that the Okpe ownership formed a “unity of character” across the region.

The present Itsekiri argument is a disingenuous distortion. They now claim the court only awarded 510 acres, attempting to imply the rest of Sapele is disputed or Itsekiri land. This is a deliberate misreading. The court case was about who owned the land of Sapele Township. The verdict was absolute: the Okpe people.

The Itsekiri claim that their presence in Sapele predates the Okpe and grants them a superior title is a profound historical distortion. While they cite colonial intelligence reports and selective historical references to assert an ancient settlement, the evidence presented and accepted in a court of law paints a different, definitive picture.

It is true that Itsekiri individuals were present in Sapele before the 1894 Nana War—but not as settlers or rulers. The court's judgment in Chief Ayomanor v. Ginuwa II clarifies their role:

• They were traders who frequented the area.
• The Okpe people, originally trading with the Ijaw, found Itsekiri merchants to be "better clients" and shifted their commerce accordingly.
• The letter from Okpe chief Omarin, cited by the Itsekiri as proof of overlordship, was definitively interpreted by the court. It showed that the Olu sent a "Captain" to Sapele to protect his own Itsekiri traders from potential Ijaw interference. This captain functioned as a policeman for Itsekiri commercial interests, not as an administrator exercising authority over the Okpe land or people.

The historical pattern is unmistakable and troubling: Itsekiri communities, welcomed as refugees by Urhobo hosts in Sapele, Amuokpe (Sagay family), and Oghara after the Nana War, later turned to claim overlordship over their benefactors. The courts have consistently rejected these claims, but the revisionist rhetoric persists, threatening the peace and rewriting a history of sanctuary into one of spurious entitlement.

The Itsekiri claim to Sapele epitomizes a recurring pattern in their relations with Urhobo neighbours: receiving sanctuary and later recasting it as sovereignty. Their pre-1894 presence was commercial and transient; their permanent settlement was contingent on Okpe consent. To now claim "overlordship" or primordial ownership is not only contradicted by judicial fact but represents a profound rewriting of a history built on Urhobo hospitality. The court correctly recognized this, dismissing the claim to authority as baseless and the historical narrative supporting it as a "fantastic story of tradition."

The matter is settled in law and in fact. Sapele is, and has been judicially confirmed to be, Okpe land. Any suggestion otherwise is not a legitimate historical claim, but a dangerous and ungrateful revival of a long-debunked colonial-era fiction.

© Michael O. Dedon (2026)

The Hypocrisy of Itsekiri Overlordship: A Weapon Against Others, Rejected by Their Own

 

Introduction

The Itsekiri claim of Olu overlordship over non-Itsekiri lands is not a consistent legal principle but a political weapon, selectively applied. Its fundamental hypocrisy is laid bare by two facts: Itsekiri communities themselves reject it when applied to their own lands, and its legal validity has always depended on judicial complicity rather than historical truth.

The Selective Enforcement of Overlordship

In two landmark cases, the same claim—Olu overlordship—was treated in opposite ways, exposing its dubious foundation:

1.   Ometan v. Dore Numa (Agbassa Warri Land): The colonial court accepted the overlordship fiction to protect the British proxy, Dore Numa, dispossessing the Agbassa people despite their clear prior occupancy and the existence of a treaty affirming their autonomy (which the court conveniently overlooked).

2.   Ayomanor v. Ginuwa II (Sapele Land): Here, a more principled judge dismissed the identical claim of overlordship as baseless, calling the supporting narrative a "fantastic story of tradition" which emanated largely from the fertile brain of that self-styled historian, Chief William Moore. The court recognized the Okpe as the true owners and the Itsekiri as refugees who settled with Okpe permission.

This inconsistency reveals overlordship not as law, but as politics. When courts served colonial interests (protecting Dore), the fiction was upheld. When courts sought justice, it was dismissed offhandedly.

Understanding "Overlordship": Sovereignty vs. Ownership

The Itsekiri argument conflates two distinct concepts:

● Sovereignty (Overlordship): Supreme political authority over a territory—a public, governmental power.

 

●       Title (Ownership): The private, legal right to possess, use, and transfer specific property.

 

A sovereign does not automatically own all land within his domain. The British Crown, for example, held radical title over Nigeria but did not claim ownership of every family’s farm. The Olu’s purported overlordship, even if historically valid (which it is not), would be a political authority, not a proprietary one. It would not justify dispossessing families of land they have owned for generations. An overlord usually exercises sovereign rights over lands in his domain and not title to the land as sovereignty and property operate in distinct legal and moral domains. Sovereign rights over land and title to land represent two distinct legal domains: public authority versus private ownership.

Crucially, any vestige of the Olu's colonial-era "sovereignty" was extinguished by:

●       The creation of the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust (ICLT, 1959), which took over administrative control of the Dore Numa leases. The ICTL was created to cure a defect in the Olu's overlordship claim which only vested sovereign rights and not title to land. The creation of the ICTL was to enable the Itsekiri establishment gain title to the said Dore leases and other Itsekiri communally owned lands. Trouble came for the ICTL when it overstepped its mandate by encroaching onto Itsekiri and Urhobo privately held lands in Warri which eventually led to its dissolution by the government.

 

●       The Land Use Act (1978), which vested all land in the state governor, nullifying any traditional claims to sovereignty over territory. This effectively killed the Olu's sovereign rights claim as there cannot be two sovereigns within one domain.

The Itsekiri Themselves Reject Overlordship

The most damning evidence against the overlordship claim comes from Itsekiri communities. They have consistently and successfully fought the Olu and the ICLT in court to protect their family-owned lands:

●       The Forcados Case (Dore v. Olue, 1921): where the Ugborodo/Ogidigben people resisted Dore’s claims, forcing a compromise that recognized family land ownership.

 

●       Arthur Prest v. ICLT (1971): The ICLT lost its claim to Ugbuwangue lands after the claim of overlordship was resisted.

 

●     Ugbori Land Case: The descendants of Prince Ewolofun (John Anewe Omagbemi) defeated the ICLT, arguing the Olu is overlord of people (Olaja), not land (Olale). To prove their independent founding, they called the Otota of Agbassa to testify that the Agbassa were the only people present when their ancestors arrived—the ultimate irony.

●       Ekurede land Case: The descendants of Oforudu (Ovor’Udu) who were divided over the history of Ekurede’s founding. One faction claimed that the Olu granted permission for the land’s establishment, while the other contended that it was founded by Oforudu from Udu (Urhobo), with the original name being Okurode, later changed to Ekurede. Some members of the family were influenced by the Olu, who offered them a chieftaincy title and other incentives to support a distorted version of how Ekurede came to be in order to maintain the overlordship narrative.

The Ultimate Hypocrisy: A Weapon Turned Inward

The pattern is undeniable: Itsekiri elites champion overlordship to claim others' lands (Ogbe Ijoh, Agbassa, Ogunu, Sapele) but reject it fiercely to protect their own lands (Ugborodo, Ugbori, Ugbuwangue, Omadino, Ekurede). This is not a legal doctrine but a tool of territorial expansion.

John Anewe Omagbemi’s Ugbori land case epitomizes this. His father (Omagbemi) was used to continue Dore’s case against the Agbassa (after Dore died) on appeal, yet he later led the fight to protect Ugbori from the very same overlordship doctrine. This is the core hypocrisy: Overlordship is valid only when it dispossesses a neighbour; it becomes an illegitimate "colonial fiction" the moment it threatens an Itsekiri family’s patrimony.

 
Conclusion: A Doctrine Built on Sand

The Olu’s overlordship is:

1.      Historically false: A British colonial invention for administrative convenience.

2.      Legally inconsistent: Upheld only by complicit courts, rejected by principled ones.

3.   Rejected by its purported beneficiaries: Itsekiri communities themselves deny it applies to their family lands.

4.      Politically extinguished: Superseded by the Land Use Act.

It is not a principle of customary law but a strategy of conflict, sustained by historical revisionism and maintained only so long as it serves a political purpose against non-Itsekiri communities. Its continued assertion is the greatest barrier to peace and justice in Warri.

 

© Michael O. Dedon (2026)