WARRI: THE KING, THE KINGDOM, THE LAND, AND THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH
A Historical and Legal Rebuttal to Victor Okumagba’s Claims
There is a saying that the older you get, the wiser you become. Yet, some Urhobo elders living in Warri have repeatedly demonstrated that wisdom is not guaranteed by age. Their actions, statements, and public interviews expose them to be non-analytical, fact-resistant, and intellectually lazy. Victor Okumagba, in his recent interview, epitomizes this problem. He has publicly claimed that the name “Warri” is not connected to the Itsekiri people and that there has never been a documented Olu of Warri. These claims are not only factually false but demonstrate a dangerous ignorance of history, law, and local custom.
As the Itsekiri Historical Front, we would have ignored these cries had it not been for the blatant disregard for history and law. Previous historians and legal experts such as J.O.S. Ayomike, J.O. Sagay, E.O. Ekpoto, Chief I.O. Jemide, and Chief O.N. Rewane have dismantled these same Urhobo lies in the past. But the persistence of such claims requires that we once again provide a complete historical, legal, and evidentiary rebuttal.
The Origin of Warri and the Kingdom:
Ordinarily, Warri is not merely a name of a town but the name of a kingdom, the Warri Kingdom, the homeland of the Itsekiri people. The kingdom was founded by Ginuwa I, son of Oba Olua of Benin, around 1480 AD. This historical fact has been documented extensively and remains uncontested by credible historical sources. The kingdom embraced all Itsekiri towns, communities, and villages along and around the Benin and Warri Rivers, extending down to Ugborodo (escravos), Forcados and their environs.
The traditional capital of the kingdom, known as Ode-Itsekiri, was called Iwere (Warri), becoming the name of the kingdom itself. Later, when the modern township emerged, the new area became widely known as “Warri,” while Ode-Itsekiri retained the name Big Warri. This was never a matter of size but of historical precedence — life and governance started in Ode-Itsekiri long before the township now called Warri even existed. Any reasonable historian would recognize that the term “Big Warri” reflects historical importance, not geographical extent.
Victor Okumagba’s claim that “Warri is not an Itsekiri name” is historically indefensible and reveals a profound misunderstanding of the region’s history. European corruption of African place names is well-documented: Bonny became Banny, Calabar became Old Calabar, Bini was recorded as Benin and Ouidah as Whydah. Warri followed the same pattern. The name Warri is derived from the Itsekiri word Iwere, which refers to a leaf symbolizing wealth, prosperity, and good fortune. Over centuries, this original term was corrupted by Europeans and others into multiple variants, yet its Itsekiri origin has remained undeniable. Any assertion to the contrary ignores both linguistic evidence and the historical record.
Over centuries, this word was corrupted by Europeans and others into multiple variants, including:
1. Oery
2. Oere
3. Ouere
4. Aware
5. Awery
6. Aweri
7. Awyri
8. Warree
9. Owerri
10. Owyhere
11. Ouwerre
12. Owere
13. Wari
14. Warri
The word Iwere refers specifically to the land and kingdom, not the people themselves. The inhabitants are referred to as Iwerrian, as documented by Capitaine Landolphe in 1786. European maps as early as the 1600s identify this land as Iwere or its variants, showing clearly that the name referred to the kingdom, not individuals. Maps that show “Itsekiri” reflect the people, not the land or political entity.
Iwere, now called Warri, encompasses the kingdom and the entire land within the three Warri Local Government Areas of Delta State. Ale Iwere refers specifically to the land, while Warri City is a small segment of the kingdom. Big Warri (Ode-Itsekiri) remains the historical capital, and for this reason, the king has always been known as the Olu of Warri — a title dating back more than 500 years. Historical sources affirm this: see Pedro da Cunho (1620), Diogo da Encarnação (27-9-1584), and accounts of Dom Domingos, Prince of Warri in the early 1600s.
The Name Warri and the European Corruption of Iwere
Early European Documentation of the Kingdom of Warri and the Olu of Warri:
1. Diogo da Encarnação (1584)
Encarnação identified Warri as an organized political entity with an established rulership, confirming the existence of a functioning kingdom in the sixteenth century.
2. Pedro da Cunha (1620)
An Ad limina report explicitly references Warri and its governance under the Olu, affirming both the kingdom and its monarch well before the seventeenth century.
Seventeenth-Century Geographic and Political Accounts
3. Olfert Dapper (1668)
“The Kingdom of Ouwerre or Forkados… a river, called Rio Forkado by the Portuguese, flows into the sea, and the Kingdom of Ouwerre, otherwise called Forkado, is situated on this river.”
Dapper distinguishes Forkados (river) from Ouwerre (Iwere) (kingdom), describing a defined polity, not merely a riverside settlement.
4. John Barbot (1680)
“I shall speak of the kingdom of Ouwere (Warri) or Forcado… The capital town Ouwere (Warri), which gives its name to the whole country… the ordinary residence of the king of Ouwere.”
Barbot establishes three key points:
1. Ouwere and Warri are the same place.
2. The capital town gave its name to the entire kingdom.
3. The king ruled the entire country, not just a town.
The capital referred to is Ode-Itsekiri, not modern Warri City, yet the name Warri applied to the whole kingdom, following indigenous political norms.
Political Independence and Sovereignty
5. Willem Bosman (early 1700s)
“The town of Awerri… is governed by its particular and independent king, who doth not treat the King of Benin any otherwise than as his neighbor and ally.”
Independent. Neighbor. Ally. Not subject. Not subordinate.
Royal Correspondence and International Recognition
6. Governor of São Tomé to the Olu of Warri (10 July 1734)
“Your Majesty has been acclaimed King of the Kingdom of Warri… I congratulate you… May God guard the person of Your Majesty for many years.”
This is formal diplomatic correspondence acknowledging a sovereign King and Kingdom. No Urhobo ruler ever received such recognition because no Urhobo kingdom existed on the coastal delta.
Territorial Authority and Military Power
7. Captain Landolphe (1777)
“The lands on its two banks belong to the sovereign of Owhère, independent of that of Benin… He owns not only both banks of the Benin River but also all the rivers of these parts as far as the tributaries of the Calabar.”
This confirms jurisdiction over rivers, banks, and tributaries, not mere residence. Landolphe also noted that the Warri navy was among the most formidable on the African coast.
8. French Record (1788)
“Lord Sebastian Otobia, King of Owhere (Warri), Jabou, and other places…”
Nineteenth-Century Confirmation
9. Richard Francis Burton (1863)
“Wari — also called Warri, Owari, Uwerree, Awerri, Owheyre… is known to the people as ‘Jakri’; the town, once the capital of a powerful kingdom, has ever claimed independence… Elusa, son of Rejo, King of Wari and Lower Benin.”
Burton confirms:
• Multiple phonetic corruptions of Iwere
• Identification of the people as Jakri (Itsekiri)
• Existence of a powerful, independent kingdom
He also wrote:
“At Warri we were one day’s row from Sobo country.”
This means Warri region was geographically outside Sobo territory, refuting Urhobo claims. If it could take a day to get to sobo territory then present day Warri city was never part of their lands. Which we have been educating them about.
Royal Regalia and Continuity of Kingship
10. John King (c. 1817), cited in H. L. Roth (1903)
“At Warri the actual crown of the sovereign is a sort of large cap in the shape of a cone three feet high, covered with coral beads and with a couple of birds’ heads on top.”
Reference: John King, c.1817, cited in H. L. Roth, Great Benin: Its Customs, Arts, and Horrors (1903), p. 27, note 1.
This confirms:
1. A reigning sovereign at Warri in the early nineteenth century.
2. it confirms the sovereign ruling the entire Warri Kingdom.
3. Established European recognition of Warri’s monarchical institution.
11. C. H. Read & O. M. Dalton (1898)
“The ‘crown’ of the King of Warri was three feet high… covered with coral beads.”
This confirms that in 1898, the Olu was not called ‘Olu of Itsekiri’ but ‘King of Warri.’ So, did Awolowo invent that title in 1898 as Victor Okumagba claims?
12. Mary H. Kingsley (1901)
“Nevertheless, the adjacent kingdom of Owarie (Warri), even in the sixteenth century, was an independent kingdom… Warri had not then, and has not to this day, human sacrifice in its religious observances.”
What this confirms:
• “Owarie” is simply another European corruption of the Itsekiri word Iwere, which is now called Warri.
• The kingdom was historically known as the Kingdom of Warri, not “Kingdom of Itsekiri.”
• It was an independent and sovereign state with its own governance, culture, and religious practices.
• This directly refutes any claim that the title “Olu of Warri” is recent or that Warri historically belonged to other ethnic groups.
Given all the evidence presented above, one has to wonder what exactly Victor Okumagba was referring to when he claimed there is no documented evidence of the Olu being called the King of Warri or the kingdom being called the Kingdom of Warri—and that it was Awolowo who invented such titles. Was Chief Awolowo even alive between 1668 and 1863? Is this not a clear display of ignorance? Does this not expose blatant historical illiteracy on Victor Okumagba’s part? Does it not conclusively prove that certain Urhobo leaders including Victor Okumagba claiming authority over Warri matters are intellectually lazy, incapable of basic reading, proper research, or even rudimentary comprehension of documented facts?
The Olu of Warri Title, Colonial Interference, and the Failed Urhobo Claim:
Having established beyond dispute that Warri is the name of a kingdom, not an accidental township label, and that Ode-Itsekiri (Big Warri) was the political, cultural, and historical capital long before the emergence of the modern township, it becomes necessary to confront directly the falsehoods repeatedly recycled by Victor Okumagba and other Urhobo revisionists. Their claims collapse immediately once history, colonial records, and their own admissions are examined.
For over four hundred years, the title “Olu of Warri” was used continuously and without controversy. From the 15th century until the interregnum of 1848–1936, when no Olu was crowned due to internal and external disruptions, the title never changed. During this long interregnum, the title did not disappear; it merely lay dormant with the monarchy itself. When preparations were made to revive the Itsekiri monarchy with the coronation of Ginuwa II in 1936, official documents of the colonial administration referred plainly and unambiguously to the Olu of Warri.
It was only at this late stage — 1936, not 1536, not 1636, not 1736 — that a political intervention occurred. The Urhobo Progressive Union, under the leadership of Mukoro Mowoe, lobbied the colonial government to alter the title. The argument was not historical, not legal, and not factual. It was purely administrative and opportunistic. Mowoe argued that since Warri Province contained Urhobo territories, the title “Olu of Warri” might be construed as implying authority over the entire province. This was a deliberate conflation of provincial administration with indigenous sovereignty, something the British themselves routinely distinguished elsewhere in Nigeria.
The colonial administration, eager to avoid conflict and ignorant of the deeper historical implications, temporarily altered the title to “Olu of Itsekiri.” This change did not arise from history; it arose from convenience. And it was immediately condemned — not by Itsekiri alone — but by leading Nigerian intellectuals who understood the danger of rewriting indigenous political history.
European and Contemporary Nigerian Intervention
1. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe – West African Pilot, May 14, 1940
“His Highness Ginuwa II is Olu of the Itsekiri-speaking people, who live on Itsekiri land… If the matter is discussed in detail, it will be found that a definite title is necessary, in which case, the Olu of Warri seems to be the most historical and correct. When we speak of the Oba of Lagos we refer to the Paramount Native Ruler of Lagos, although Lagos is peopled mainly by Yoruba-speaking peoples and Lagos is part of Yorubaland. So too, in the case of His Highness Ginuwa II, the Olu of Warri is the Paramount Native Ruler of Warri…”
Azikiwe’s intervention is devastating to Urhobo claims. He made three points that remain unanswerable:
First, that titles follow historical political entities, not ethnic population ratios.
Second, that Warri, like Lagos, is a political domain with a paramount ruler irrespective of demographic diversity.
Third, that “Olu of Warri” is not only valid but the most historical and correct title.
Victor Okumagba and his cohort conveniently ignores Azikiwe findings because they cannot rebut him.
The 1952 Riot, Inquiry, and Final Settlement
The matter resurfaced in 1952, following disturbances linked again to the same misunderstanding deliberately fueled by Urhobo political actors. This time, however, the issue was subjected to a formal inquiry, and both sides were invited to present their cases before Chief Obafemi Awolowo.
The Itsekiri case was presented by Chief M.E.R. Okorodudu, who relied entirely on documented history, European records, indigenous tradition, and common sense. The Urhobo case was presented by Chief P.K. Tobiowo.
Crucially — and this is what Victor Okumagba never tells his audience — Chief Tobiowo did not dispute the historical ownership of Warri by the Itsekiri. He did not claim that Urhobo founded Warri. He did not claim that the Olu was an Urhobo ruler. He simply repeated Mukoro Mowoe’s old administrative argument: that the name “Warri Province” created confusion.
Chief Okorodudu then made a proposal that exposed the emptiness of the Urhobo position. He suggested that the problem lay not with the Olu’s title, but with the name of the province. If the province name was changed, the argument collapsed entirely. The proposal was simple:
Rename Warri Province to Delta Province, thereby confining the name “Warri” to its rightful historical meaning — the Itsekiri homeland.
The Urhobo delegation accepted this proposal.
The colonial government accepted this proposal.
The matter was forwarded to the Western House of Assembly in Ibadan, where it was debated and adopted.
As a result:
• Warri Province became Delta Province
• The title reverted permanently to Olu of Warri
• The jurisdiction of the Olu was explicitly confined to Warri (Itsekiri land)
This settlement remains binding. There has been no repeal, no reversal, and no legal challenge overturning it.
the Admission of the Urhobo
Only the Urhobo political elite attempted to weaponize administrative boundaries to manufacture claims that history does not support.
Even more damning is the fact that Urhobo acceptance of the settlement implicitly acknowledged that:
• Warri is not Urhobo land
• The Olu’s authority is indigenous, not provincial
• The dispute was never about history, but about influence
Land Ownership and the Okumagba Distortion
Victor Okumagba routinely misrepresents the Okere-Urhobo Supreme Court judgment of 1976. That judgment granted possessory rights to 281.1 acres of land in Idimi-Sobo. It did not grant radical title, and it did not transform Warri into Urhobo land.
Under Nigerian land law and customary tenure, radical title remains with the indigenous sovereign authority — in this case, the Olu of Warri. This principle has never been overturned. Possession is not sovereignty, and occupancy is not ownership.
The Urhobo presence in Warri arose historically through:
• Service to the Warri monarchy
• Refugee settlement from internecine conflicts inland
• Later colonial-era migration driven by commerce and industry
These facts are documented, not insults.
Warri as a Kingdom, Not a Township – Law, Geography, and the Collapse of the Urhobo Argument
Victor Okumagba’s central deception rests on a deliberate confusion between Warri as a kingdom and Warri as a colonial township. This confusion is not accidental; it is strategic. Without it, every Urhobo claim collapses instantly. No indigenous African kingdom has ever been defined by a colonial township created centuries after its founding. Benin Kingdom was not defined by Benin City’s municipal boundaries; Oyo was not defined by Ibadan’s later expansion; Lagos was not defined by British-administered Lagos Colony. Warri is no exception.
The Warri Kingdom existed long before the British, long before Urhobo migration into the coastal belt, and long before the creation of Warri Township in the late nineteenth century. Warri Township was merely a commercial and administrative outpost established by the British after they moved their operational headquarters from Ode-Itsekiri. This relocation did not — and could not — alter indigenous sovereignty.
Why This Response Is Necessary
As the Itsekiri Historical Front, it would ordinarily be unnecessary to revisit matters settled by scholars such as J.O.S. Ayomike, J.O. Sagay, E.O. Ekpoto, Chief I.O. Jemide, and Chief O.N. Rewane. These men dismantled Urhobo revisionism decades ago using primary sources and colonial archives.
But the persistence of misinformation — especially when propagated by elders who should know better — makes silence irresponsible. Age does not confer wisdom when facts are rejected. Repetition does not transform falsehood into truth.
Victor Okumagba’s arguments are not new. They are recycled, debunked, and historically bankrupt. What is new is the refusal to acknowledge that the matter was settled by history, by inquiry, by legislation, and by acceptance from all sides involved
Urhobo Arrival as Refugees and Tenants
European and missionary sources documented Urhobo migration into Warri clearly.
12. Rev. John Hubbard
“A migration occurred probably late in the eighteenth century… These people crossed the Warri River and by negotiation with the Jekiri obtained land from them… This is now one of the quarters of Warri.”
Negotiation. Obtained land. Quarter of Warri. Not founders.
The Fatal Admissions in Court
Urhobo leaders sealed their own case under oath.
In Suit 25/1926, Ikpuri testified:
“We are servants of the Olu.”
In SC 328/1972, Chief E. Etsaghara admitted:
“The Olu of Warri by tradition is entitled to one-third of the compensation.”
These are not colonial impositions. These are Urhobo admissions.
Victor Okumagba is not misunderstood. He is wrong.
Wrong historically.
Wrong legally.
Wrong linguistically.
Wrong geographically.
Ogbe-Ijaw, British Convenience, and the Lie of “Ownership”
One of the most reckless distortions repeated by Victor Okumagba in his interview is the claim that Ogbe-Ijaw and Agbassa are co-owners or original owners of Warri. This claim collapses immediately when confronted with documented history, colonial administrative records, eyewitness European accounts, and sworn court testimony. It survives only in propaganda, not in scholarship.
Ogbe-Ijaw: Fishing Settlements, Not Founders
The Ijaw presence in Warri was never territorial ownership. It was economic utility — fishing and trade — conducted under the authority and permission of the Olu of Warri and his chiefs. The Ijaw themselves never claimed kingship over Warri in pre-colonial times, because they could not. They had no land, no palace, no crown, no court, no sovereign structure in Warri.
Their settlements clustered at creek mouths, not inland political centers. This alone should have ended the debate long ago.
When The British moved to Warri Township on account of Ogbe who brought them to Warri township the Ijaw fishermen operating in creeks near Ode-Itsekiri, followed them. This is how the name of Ogbe (an Itsekiri chief) became associated with the area later mislabelled “Ogbe-Ijaw.” In Warri township.
This naming error later became weaponized by people who confuse presence with ownership.
Crucially, whenever the British needed land for administrative or commercial purposes, they dealt directly with Itsekiri authorities—not Ijaw fishermen. They negotiated with the very Chief Ogbe who had previously agreed to allocate land to the Ijaw fishermen, giving that same land for the new government structures and instructing the fishermen to relocate. If the land had truly been theirs originally, would they have moved so easily?
That fact is not disputed anywhere in colonial records.
Ogbe the Itsekiri Chief and British Entry
Even Rev. John Hubbard — whose works Urhobo writers often selectively quote — made this clear when read fully and honestly.
13. Rev. John Hubbard
“The most important of these was Ogbe, through whose instrumentality the British came to Warri; he died in 1916 and his grave can be seen in Ugbuwangwe.”
Ogbe was not Ijaw. He was an Itsekiri chief, acting within the authority of the Olu of Warri. The British came to Itsekiri because they know the owners of this lands, not Urhobo or Ijaw. This is why all Warri Original not fake but Original leases, treaties, and agreements bear Itsekiri signatures.
When land was required from areas occupied by Ijaw fishermen, permission came from the Itsekiri landlord, not the tenant.
This alone disqualifies any claim of ownership.
Why Ogbe-Ijaw Was Barred from Court
Ogbe-Ijaw groups eventually attempted to transform fishing rights into ownership claims. Nigerian courts rejected this categorically. They were barred from pursuing ownership claims over Warri lands, because they lacked:
• Founding rights
• Original settlement claims
• Sovereign authority
• Overlordship recognition
Fishing does not create title. Temporary occupation does not create sovereignty.
Agbassa: Refugees, Not Founders
Victor Okumagba’s repeated attempt to portray Agbassa as owners of Warri Township is perhaps the most audacious falsehood in the entire interview.
Agbassa people did not deny their migration. They documented it themselves — and admitted it under oath.
Their original name, Uboweaghnassato, meaning “this is where we ran to”, is not folklore; it is linguistic history. The name was given to them by the Itsekiri, specifically through Uwangue of Warri Kingdom, after they fled Agbarha-Otor due to internal conflicts.
The Itsekiri accepted them as agricultural settlers, not as co-owners. They were granted space at Ubomale, now called Agbassa.
This is consistent with Rev. Hubbard’s account and court testimony.
Agbassa Admissions Under Oath
The most damaging evidence against Victor Okumagba’s claims comes not from Itsekiri historians, but from Agbassa chiefs themselves, speaking under oath in Nigerian courts.
14. Suit No. 25/1926 – Testimony of Ikpuri
“I live at Ijeba where I was born. I am Sobo, a native of Agbassa. Agbassa village is Bomali. We come from Agbassa Otor. Jekris came here first. All this is Jekris land. We render service to the Olu. We cut grass and clear ground when Jekris chief died. We are servants of the Olu.”
This testimony alone ends the debate permanently.
15. Supreme Court Suit No. SC 328/1972 – Chief E. Etsaghara
“I was told by my elders… that in the olden days our ancestors used to pay homage to the Olu of Warri for the permission granted to settle on the land… If compensation for land acquired is paid to us, one-third of the amount goes to the Olu… This is in accordance with the native law and custom of the Itsekiri and Urhobo in Warri division.”
Ownership does not pay homage.
Ownership does not remit tribute.
Ownership does not share compensation with an overlord.
16. Chief Agaga Agbaisi – Same Suit
“The Olu is the overlord of Agbassa land. When we get compensation… one-third goes to the Olu or Itsekiri communal land trustees.”
Victor Okumagba cannot erase sworn testimony. Courts do not accept interviews as evidence.
The Ogbe-Ijaw claim collapses under colonial leases and court rulings.
The Agbassa claim collapses under sworn testimony and court rulings.
The Urhobo claim collapses under migration records.
Victor Okumagba’s argument collapses under every discipline — history, law, linguistics, geography, and anthropology.
These are not claims waiting for validation; they are conclusions already settled by history. No amount of denial can erase four centuries of documentation. Falsehood may shout, but it cannot endure. History, patiently and relentlessly, always prevails.
As the late Chief Arthur Prest once observed with accuracy:
“Warri has truly worried urhobo’s.”
Attached to this publication are two early European maps of Warri showing variant spellings of the name Iwere. On the first map, produced in 1762, the name “Owere” is clearly visible, conclusively demonstrating that the land now known as Warri was originally called Iwere. The second map, dated 1743, shows “Awerri (Warri)” written twice: once indicating the capital, Ode-itsekiri, and again marking what is present-day Warri city. This is evident from the accurate depiction of the three rivers—the Forcados, Escravos, and Benin rivers.
Importantly, the same 1743 map shows, in the northern part of Benin, “Oufsoubou (Urhobo),” indicating that at that time the Urhobo were still mapped within Benin territory, while the Warri kingdom already existed independently, clearly labeled Regnum Awerri—a Latin term meaning the Kingdom of Warri.
Signed:
Comr. Lily-white O Esigbone
Chairman
Silva Samuel Maku
Secretary
Mr. Oritsegbubemi Adrian Edema
Chairman itsekiri historical front UK
Comr. Oritseweyiologbara Kwame Woode
PRO
Leave a Reply