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)