IYE REAFFIRMS ITSEKIRI OWNERSHIP OF WARRI AND CLARIFIES IJAW STATUS AS CUSTOMARY TENANTS

The Leadership of the Itsekiri Youth Elite (IYE) wishes to respond to the recent publication in The Liberator Newspapers Worldwide by Comr. Moses Omare, who claims to be the Chairman of Ogbe-Ijoh (IYC). His assertion that the Itsekiri are “customary tenants” in Warri and his allegations of attacks on Ijaw communities are not only misleading but also unfounded in historical, legal, and physical realities.

Speaking from his Warri residence, Comr. Lily-White O. Esigbone, President of IYE, stated:

> “The Itsekiri people, under the overlordship of the Olu of Warri, have historically and legally been recognized as the indigenous owners of Warri. Other ethnic groups, including the Urhobo and Ijaw, have historically held the status of customary tenants.”

These assertions are supported by several landmark judicial rulings and historical precedents, including:

1. THE IJAW SETTLERS IN WARRI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY

The Ijaw settlers in Warri Federal Constituency are found within the settlements which are known as Ogbe-Ijoh, Egbeoma and Gbaramatu. Their principal occupations are fishing and canoe carving. Like their counterparts (the Urhobo settlers in Warri Division), they are customary tenants of the Itsekiris, an issue which has been settled for all time by the Courts of Law as shown hereunder.

OGBE-IJOH AREA

CASE 1:

In 1928 Chief Apoh (Itsekiri) sued Perememighan (Ijaw) of Ogbe-Ijoh claiming ownership, under the Olu of Warri, of Arutieghan Creek together with all the surrounding lands. The Warri Native Court which found in favor of Apoh (Itsekiri) significantly had, as a member, one Chief Buluku (Ijaw of Kiagbodo). Then in 1938 the same Chief Apoh and Chief Okotie, Itsekiri Chiefs of Irigbo in Ode-Itsekiri, sued the Pere, the head of the Saba community in Ogbe-Ijoh area claiming an injunction restraining the Ijaws of the area from fishing in certain rivers and using lands described as Ofulu, Utonileme, Utongboro, Krokoto etc., being Itsekiri rivers and lands.

While not disputing the claim of the Itsekiris, the Pere maintained that as Pere he was entitled to fish on the rivers without paying tributes. The Court found inter alia:

“…The Court will not make an order to eject the defendant from using the rivers and lands but an Order will be made restraining the defendant from using the rivers unless with the special and unanimous permission of the plaintiffs to whom the Olu has vested occupancy rights.

Defendants used to fish over the areas with plaintiffs’ permission. This system must continue”.

CASE 2:

In Suit W/116/56, Eyin Pessu, Akowe Apoh (Itsekiris) and the Olu of Warri versus Brigbo and others (Ijaws), Justice Obaseki found in favor of the Itsekiris in the case of declaration of title over Aruteghan Creek together with all the surroundings lands, The learned judge held:

“It is clear from the evidence before me that the friendly intercourse between the Itsekiris and Ijaws extends backwards over very many generations. With regard to the case put up by 8th and 9th defendants, I find that I cannot accept the traditional evidence given by the 8th defendant and his witness as true. I think it is a deliberate fabrication to deny plaintiffs’ title (1) to the land, and (2) right to put tenants on the land and creek in dispute.

It is a matter of regret that the title which 8th defendant’s grandfather, Numa, never disputed is now being disputed by 8th defendant, Torowei Numa. It is only the title which a father has that he passes on to his son. It is clear from the past cases that Numa was only averse to the idea of money rent payment. He acknowledged that the title of ownership resided in the Olu and that he gave catch of fishes to the Olu’s son, Egbegbe”.

Finding the plaintiffs case proved, Justice Obaseki entered judgement in respect of the declaration of title in favor of the plaintiffs as follows :-

“The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs (Itsekiris) are, however, entitled to a declaration of possessory title to the land, excluding streams and watercourses, including Aruteghan creek, described in Ex. “A”. The 3rd plaintiff (Olu of Warri) is entitled to the radical title to the land. (Words in brackets ours).

The defendants who were dissatisfied with the judgement went on appeal to the Supreme Court and eventually lost. By that judgement, the dispute about ownership of the entire area of land which extends from Aruteghan near Ode-Itsekiri to the boundary of Warri Division near Burutu was brought to a close. It is now legally recognized that the whole area is the property of Irigbo people (Itsekiris) under the overlordship of the Olu of Warri.

CASE 3:

Another case of most considerable importance was the action in Suit No.W/148/56 taken by Chief Isuokumo Oloiki and others (for themselves and on behalf of Ijaw settlers in Ogbe-Ijoh in Warri Division) against Itsekiri Communal Land trustees & Anor.

In the action the Ijaws, not without the prompting of the Urhobos, claimed a declaration of title to most of Warri Division including Warri township. After much of legal arguments and seeing the futility of their actions, the plaintiffs, that is the Ijaws, eventually decided to discontinue the Suit, and Rhodes Vivour J. delivered a judgement part of which reads as follows:-

“On the 9/7/64 this Court delivered its ruling refusing the plaintiffs’ application to discontinue after the trial date had been fixed to the knowledge of the parties. The plaintiffs have now asked for leave to discontinue under Order 28 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules Cap.44 Laws of Western Nigeria 1959. The Plaintiffs are hereby precluded from bringing any further actions or action against any or either of the 1st and 2nd defendants in respect of the claims of which specific particulars were given in the Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and amended statement of claim in this action. Leave is accordingly granted the plaintiffs to discontinue this action.”

CASE 4:

As the Ijaw people were aggrieved by this order which forever barred them from re-opening this case against the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees, they appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 24th April 1967, with Sir Lionel Brett Ag, C.J. presiding, summarily dismissed the appeal in Suit No. SC/450/65. So, the Ijaws of Ogbe-Ijoh should never be heard to say anything about ownership of Ogbe-Ijoh lands or any lands in Warri Divisions again.

2. GBARAMATU IJAW ENCLAVE

CASE 1:

In Suit No. W/20/46, Adurumokumor (Ijaw) acting for himself and on behalf of Bakokodia Ijaw Community took action against Kponu (Itsekiri) of Omadino for a declaration of title to the land described as Bakokodia.

The true position is that the Ijaw inhabitants of Bakokodia and its environs came from Western Ijaw and were permitted by Chanomi Iye on the authority of Omadino people to settle there. Ademola J. dismissed Adurumokumor’s action on the ground that the people of Bakokodia had failed to prove their title to the land claimed by them. As the Ijaws persisted in demanding tributes and rents from those using the land and fishing in the rivers, Omadino people, represented by Chief Sillo and Edremoda Golly, sued Adurumokumor on behalf of Bakokodia people in Suit No. W/20/46 in Warri High Court and successfully obtained a declaration of title over Bakokodia and the surrounding lands and rivers. The court awarded damages for trespass against the Ijaws who, according to the Judge were put on the land by Omadino people who acknowledge the overlordship rights of the Olu of Warri. The Ijaws went to the West African Court of Appeal and lost.

CASE 2:

After this, the Ijaws continued to disregard the above judgements, and Omadino people sued them for an order of forfeiture at the Warri High Court. Ultimately at the Supreme Court the Ijaws accepted a compromise judgement in which they clearly acknowledged Omadino’s ownership of the land. See Suits Nos. W/29/51, WACA No. 3707, W/37/61 and SC/393/64.

CASE 3:

Okenrenghigho, another Ijaw settlement in Gbaramatu also fell under the axe of the Omadino people. In Suit No. 30/62 Chief Sillo (Itsekiri) versus James Uluba (Ijaw), Justice Qbaseki held that the Ijaws of Okenrenghigho are tenants of Omadlno. The Ijaws then appealed to the Supreme Court presided over by Elias, C.J., Sowewimo and Ibekwe S.C.JJ. in Suit No. SC.37/1973. They lost. The effect of these judgements is that the whole of Gbaramatu area is peopled by Ijaws who are customary tenants on lands owned by Omadino people under the overlordship of the Olu of Warri.

3. EGBEOMA IJAW ENCLAVE

Significantly, Ijaws of Egbeoma have never seriously disputed the fact that they are customary tenants of the Itsekiris and so, with them, life has been relatively peaceful.

In conclusion, therefore, one can say that it is an incontrovertible fact that the Ijaws in Warri Division, i.e. Ogbe-Ijoh, Gbaramatu and Egbeoma, have no legal claims to the lands they are settling on. They are barely and simply customary tenants of the Itsekiris in Warri Division.

A look through the cases referred to above shows that distinguished expatriate and Nigerian judges adjudicated on them. They cannot all be wrong and unfair as recent publications and petitions would want to instill into the minds of the authorities and the general public.

4. James Uluba & Ors v. Chief E.E. Sillo & Ors (1972)

A further example is the 2013 High Court ruling involving the Okere community and the Delta State Government, presided over by Hon. Justice Marshall Mukoro at the Warri High Court. The court dismissed the application of the Ogbe-Ijoh Ijaw community to be joined as parties claiming ownership of disputed land, reiterating that the issue of land ownership in Warri had been conclusively settled in favor of the Itsekiri by the Supreme Court as far back as 1964.

The claim by Comr. Moses Omare, suggesting that the Itsekiri are tenants to the Ijaw, is a gross distortion of both legal fact and oral tradition, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding or disregard of established truths. The Ijaw, like the Urhobo, have been recognized as settlers who came under the benevolent overlordship of the Olu of Warri.

Additionally, the accusation that Itsekiri youths attacked the Bulou-Ama community lacks merit. For the record, there is no officially recognized community named Bulou-Ama in Warri South Local Government Area. On the contrary, video evidence exists of Ijaw individuals attacking Itsekiri youths during a peaceful rally at the NPA Old Port area, organized to protest perceived political marginalization.

It is important to note that the Itsekiri people have consistently chosen the path of peace and legal recourse in asserting their rights, including through opposition to the INEC ward delineation, which many perceive as unfairly marginalizing the Itsekiri.

We urge the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) and the Ogbe-Ijoh leadership to respect judicial pronouncements and avoid inflammatory rhetoric that threatens peace and stability. The Olu of Warri has consistently preached unity and peaceful coexistence among all ethnic groups resident in Warri. The reckless labeling of Itsekiris as “tenants” risks undermining this harmony.

The Itsekiri Youth Elite (IYE) calls on the Delta State Government, under the leadership of His Excellency Governor Sheriff Oborevwori, to uphold court rulings and ensure that all ethnic groups comply with them to prevent further crisis within the state.

Warri belongs to the Itsekiri. The Ijaw, including the Ogbe-Ijoh community, are recognized residents and customary tenants within Warri South west and not even warri south, under the jurisdiction and overlordship of the Olu of Warri. We call for a retraction of the provocative statements made by Comr. Omare and encourage all groups, Itsekiri, Ijaw, and Urhobo, to work together in unity and respect for progress and peace in Delta State.

Signed:
Comr. Lily-White Esigbone
President, Itsekiri Youth Elite (IYE)

Comr. Eboma Michael Tuoyo
Secretary, IYE

Comr. Toritseju Joseph
PRO, IYE