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)