In recent times much publicity has been mounted by both the Urhobos and Ijaws as to their position in Warri Division. The press and other media have been employed in mounting a campaign for a claim to the ownership of lands in Warri Division, the home of the Itsekiris. We, therefore, on behalf of the Committee of Itsekiri Leaders of Thought, wish most humbly to make the truth known to the general public of Nigeria and in particular to Your Excellency. Because the Itsekiris are law abiding and uninclined to ostentation, their geographical neighbors, the Urhobos and the Ijaws, in full knowledge of the facts notwithstanding, seek to hoodwink the authorities in their desire to dominate and cause the extinction of Itsekiris in their homeland.
The truth, Your Excellency, is that all the land in Warri Division is Itsekiri land being held in trust for them by the Olu of Warri as overlord. This accounts for the fact that the Communal Land Rights (Vesting in Trustees) Law 1958, was made applicable to the entire Warri Division, Government having satisfied itself as required by Section 3 Cap. 24 of the Law which states as follows:-
“The Government in Council may, after causing such inquiry to be held under Section 17 as may be necessary or expedient by order –
(a) “apply the Provisions of this Law to any area within the Region;
(b) declare to be the traditional authority in respect of a community, for the purposes of this law, those chiefs whose chieftaincy titles are associated with that community.”
Whatever land is occupied by the Urhobos and the Ijaws in Warri Division is so occupied only as customary tenants of the Itsekiris. It is common knowledge that the Urhobos and Ijaws have, in recent years, challenged the overlordship of the Olu of Warri over the parcels of land occupied by them; but it is not generally known how woefully they have failed. It is also not generally known that the Urhobos, being a migratory people which they are – a fact necessitated primarily by the over-population of their homeland – have over-flooded parts of Okitipupa Division in the Western State and have similarly laid legal claims to such parts of the Division occupied by them as owners. In every case they have failed.
The Ijaws of Giligili/Nikorowa in Benin West Division are also claiming the land on which the Oba of Benin had graciously settled them. We would like to point out that, just as the Urhobos and Ijaws are settled in enclaves in Warri Division, so the Itsekiris have enclaves in Urhobo Division; examples are Ajigben, Ugbosien, Elume, Ajogunyibo, Ajimele and Efuropke to mention a few. In Benin Division the Itsekiris have the following enclaves: Ologbo, Ajamogha, Aja-Oki and Kolokolo. Throughout the entire country there are numerous examples of “enclaves” of one ethnic group in the land of another; but the rights of the landowners have never been denied by such customary tenants as the Urhobos and Ijaws are doing in Itsekiri land. We have accepted our positions as settlers in the areas in Urhobo and Benin Divisions where there are Itsekiri enclaves; but in Warri Division, we have had the great misfortune of accommodating those who have no respect for the laws of the country and who persistently flout the decisions of the Courts.
Your Excellency, we will now put before you the facts as stated by the various courts of law in the land since 1925 when our tenants, as a result of their growth in number and wealth, first attempted to question our ownership of the land in Warri Division which they are settled by the grace of the Olu of Warri. Here we will deal with only a few important cases necessary to make our point.
The first case is that in which one Ogegede, an Urhobo, acting for himself and on behalf of the Agbassa people (Agbassa is a quarter in Warri), sued Chief Dore Numa, an Itsekiri Chief who at that time was the accredited representative of the Olu of Warri, for an account of rents payable in respect of leases of parcels of land in Warri granted on behalf of the Olu. The action was calculated to take advantage of the internal political squabbles in Itsekiri land at that time. Thus, in this suit Chief Ogbobine and Omagbemi (both of them Itsekiris) sought to be joined ostensibly to reinforce the Olu representation. But, as stated by the trial judge, this was unnecessary as by a previous court judgment the position of Chief Dore Numa had been clearly defined as the accepted representative of the Olu of Warri. The application to be joined as co-defendants having been dismissed, it therefore became a straight fight between the Urhobos of Agbassa and Chief Dore Numa representing the Olu of Warri.
CASE 1:
“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA DIVISIONAL COURT, EASTERN DIVISION, WARRI ASSIZES, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1925”
Before His Honour Mr. Justice T. D. Maxwell, Judge.
OGEGEDE (on behalf of Himself and the Agbassa People)
Versus
Dore Numa
Claim: An account of rents
JUDGEMENT:
“I see no reason for granting the application which was before me yesterday viz, that Chiefs Ogbobine and Omagbemi should be joined in this case as Co-defendants.
Plaintiff’s claim is for an account of rents collected by the defendant in respect of portions of Agbassa land leased to the Government since 1908. No explanation has been given me as to why there has been a delay of 17 years in preferring it. They come to this Court in the persons of a series of utterly illiterate peasant witnesses. Of the first three, each of them seemed to me merely senile; and I accept (not without hesitation) their Counsel’s assertion that they were sober or at least normal in the witness-box. Each of the others seemed to me to be abysmally stupid as well as ignorant.
The evidence, such as it is, of the whole set of them is a tissue of hearsay, of rumor, of contradictions, of absurdities. Where it is not merely fatuous it is obviously fictitious.
The local (and legal) position of the defendant was on 1st February, 1924, finally laid down by the Full Court in Denedo v. Dore Numa.
That decision has been acted upon by the Executive without any opposition or criticism until the filing of this case, which if successful would strike out its very root. I do not consider it necessary to call upon the defendant or his witnesses; the onus of proof is on the plaintiffs and they have, in my opinion, singularly failed to discharge it.
Their claim seems to me both idle and preposterous. The fact that they have made it at all (and of that I can take judicial cognizance) has caused no little local excitement, and has to a certain degree dislocated trade and might even have led to a breach of the peace. I dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim and award costs to defendant assessed at one hundred and twenty-five guineas”.
(Signed) T. D. MAXWELL, Judge
6TH NOVEMSER, 1925
CASE 2:
Having lost the above case the Urhobos of Agbassa came out more directly with their intentions in the claim for absolute ownership of Warri. In 1926, Ometan, on behalf of the Agbassa Urhobos re-opened the case which Ogedede had lost in the previous year. This became known as the celebrated Ometan versus Chief Dore Numa Case. The judgement of Webber, J. reported in Nigeria Law Report pages 46-50 is as follows:-
OMETAN VERSUS CHIEF DORE
“The case before me teams with lies and acts of acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff and the Agbassa people.
As to the evidence on which the Plaintiff and his people seek a declaration of title to these lands, there is no evidence of actual occupation by the Agbassa people of any of these lands except Agbassa village which has a Jekri name and certain farm lands at Odion and Fugbe.
There can be no doubt on the evidence and this has never been denied by the Defendant and his people that Agbassa over one hundred years ago (i. e. before 1926) came from Agbassa Otor and settled at Agbassa Village and farmed in the vicinity thereof.
The evidence as to whether the Jekris permitted them to have land there and exercised overlordship over them or whether the Agbassa first arrived there is, to some extent, traditional.
This question as to who were the first arrivals can only be determined by reference to events and facts which have happened and are known to us during the last four or five decades.
Now, it has been clearly established that the defendant, as successor to the Olu of Jekris and the paramount Chief of the Jekris, has exercised ownership over most of the lands at present claimed by these Agbassas from the beginning of this century. The cases which have come before these Courts show that as the Olu of the Jekris, the defendant has always exercised sovereign rights over all these lands: leases granted by defendant to Government for Ogbejo (sic Ogbe-Ijaw) 1906, Alder, Wilkey, and Pessu Towns (1908) and the land adjoining Agbassa Village (1911).
Actual occupation by Government and receipts of rents by the defendant with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Agbassa people.
The particular features in this case are all in support of the contention that the Jekris are owners of the land, viz :-
(a) There are no Agbassa people in Qgbejo (sic Qgbe-Ijaw), Wilkey Town, Alder’s Town, and Pessu Town.
(b) The head Chief of Odion is Jekri.
(c) The head Chief of Fugbe is Jekri.
(d) Agbassa Village is known as “Bomali” which is a Jekri word.
(e) Not a single Chief of the surrounding lands supports the Agbassa claim.
The head Chief of Effurun, a Sobo man, says that the only land Agbassa possesses is a place called “Bomali” and that the Olu of the Jekris gave it to Agbassa.
And as to services rendered and tribute paid by Agbassa to the Olu of the Jekris, I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the defendant and his witnesses on these points.
I am satisfied on the evidence, apart from any legal plea of res judicata that when the Agbassa came to Warri they were given permission by the Olu of Jekris to settle on land which is now known as Bomali or Agbassa Village and that permission was granted to them to farm on lands adjoining their villages.
That from earliest times and during recent years, the Agbassa rendered service to the defendant as overlord.
The present action for a declaration of title is misconceived. If years ago their occupation of their village and farmlands was interfered with, and if assistance was refused them by their overlord, an action that under native law and custom they were entitled to remain in occupation without in any way questioning the overlordship of the defendant, might have been maintainable and the principles laid down in the 1921 case as to the position of strangers who were granted land by the Olu might be applied.
The evidence (sic the plaintiff’s evidence) does not warrant a declaration.
On the contrary the evidence negatives ownership by Agbassa people of the lands known as Ogbe-Ijaw, Alder’s Town, Wilkey Town and Pessu Town. As to Agbassa, Odion and Fugbe, no Court could deny the rights of Agbassa to occupy same according to Native Law and Custom provided the overlordship of the Olu of the Jekri was recognized.
As to their claim for declaration of title the Agbassas have failed.”
Again the Itsekiris won the case and the Agbassa people ware obliged by the judgment to recognize the overlordship of the Olu as a condition for remaining on the land.
This condition applies in all the other cases.
CASE 3:
AGBASSA APPEAL TO THE FULL COURT (NOW SUPREME COURT)
The Agbassas were dissatisfied with the above judgement and appealed to the Full Court. The judgement of the Full Court consisting of Kingdom C, J. Berkeley and Butler Lloyd JJ. was delivered in Lagos on 13th March 1931 by BERKELEY, J. – See Nigeria Law Reports Pages 50-52.
After reviewing the evidence and analyzing the proceedings in the Court below, Berkeley, J., had the following to say, viz:-
“In this appeal, the appellants belong to the Sobo tribe known as Agbassa. They are claiming the overlordship of the greater part of Warri as against the defendant who represents the Jekri tribe. The defendant in his representative capacity is at present the officially recognized owner of the land in dispute and the Government has leased a considerable area of land in Warri from him in that capacity.
“The plaintiffs, (i.e. appellants) do not seek in any way to disturb the existing leases, but they claim as of right to be substituted for the defendant in the overlordship of the territory in dispute.
It should be noted that this is a claim put forward to upset an existing state of affairs, and that the legal relationship between the parties, which the plaintiff now seeks to reverse, has been in existence for a great many years.
The onus is on the plaintiff to establish the existence of the rights which he claims and not on the defendant to uphold his own rights which have already been recognized and at present exist.
Throughout the evidence given in the Court below, the plaintiff has nowhere been able to establish the fact that at any time the Agbassas were recognized as the overlords of the Jekri people. What they do is to plead their own occupation of portions of Warri land, deny that they ever paid tribute to the Olu of Jekris, and assert that they were in Warri before the Jekris came there.
The defendant on the other hand asserts that the Jekri tribe were the first to settle in Warri, that their Olu gave the Agbassas a piece of land to live upon and other land to farm, and that the Agbassas have paid tribute or rendered service to Olu for this land from time to time. The defendant is also able to point to certain leases of Warri land made by the Olu of the Jekri to the Government. These leases go back to the early years of the present century, and have been extensively built over since.
With regard to these leases, the plaintiffs explain their acquiescence by saying that they know nothing about them.
But this explanation is not credible. Warri is a restricted area of solid ground enclosed by mangrove swamps and creeks. It is impossible that extensive building operations of a permanent nature could be carried on over a period of years in such an area without the knowledge of those who claim to be the overlords of the land and were actually living on the area.
In my opinion, the Agbassa were given permission by the Olu of Jekris to settle on land in Warri. That they have since increased in numbers, wealth and importance until now they feel themselves strong enough to impugn the title of their overlord.
Nor do they limit claim to land they themselves occupy, but seek to establish rights of overlordship to land which has always hitherto been recognized as Jerki.
In my opinion they have failed to establish their claims.
I consider that this appeal should be dismissed”.
The other two members of the Full Court gave their concurrence to the judgement by Berke1ey, J. above, and the appeal of the Agbassas was dismissed with costs.
One would like to call attention to paragraphs 3 and 4 from the bottom of the judgement and in particular to the word “impugn” in the fourth paragraph from the bottom that is “That they have since increased in numbers, wealth and importance until now they feel themselves strong enough to impugn the title of their overlord.
“Nor do they limit their claim to land which they themselves occupy, but seek to establish rights of overlordship to land which has always hitherto been recognized as Jekri”. How apt!
CASE 4:
AGBASSA APPEAL TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Never seeming able to understand, or perhaps in their self conceit, the Agbassa people appealed to the Privy Council in London and this appeal was listed as No. 65 of 1932.
Lord ATKIN delivered the judgement of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council present, who were LORD ATKIN, LORD ALNESS and SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT. The judgement was as follows :-
“This is an appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Nigeria who dismissed the present appellant’s appeal from the Judgement of Mr. Justice Webber in an action in which the appellant was plaintiff and the respondents were defendants. It was an action brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of a tribe or sub-tribe in that district of the Agbassa people claiming territorial rights over land known as the Agbassa land in the Warri District of the Southern Province of Nigeria. The dispute was between the plaintiff representing the Agbassa people and the defendants representing another tribe or sub-tribe of the Jekri people claiming to be overlords of this territory.
In the circumstances, there being concurrent findings of fact and there being in addition ample evidence to support them, it is quite impossible for their Lordships to interfere with the decisions which have been arrived at by both Courts and their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. The respondents must have the cost of the appeal”. See 11 Nigeria Law Reports, Pages 18& 19.
At this point, we would summarize thus that the Agbassas lost their battle for the ownership of Warri Lands two times at the Supreme Court (Now High Court) in Warri in 1925 and 1926, went on Appeal to the Full Court (now Federal Supreme Court) in 1931 and lost; then went to the Privy Council where they also failed in 1933. What else could anybody need in order to know that the Itsekiris are the owners of Warri, including Agbassa?
It is relevant at this point to say that even the Privy Council decision did not end the baseless claim of the Agbassa Urhobos.
Each time Government sought to acquire lands in Agbassa and Igbudu areas, the Urhobos of Agbassa would claim the entire proceeds for themselves denying the overlordship rights of the Olu.
CASE 5:
In Suit No. W /44/1941 – Assistant Judge John Jackson found:
“There is no question, I think that all claimants admit that the land, now the subject of this action, formed a part of the land that was the subject of the action Ometan v. Chief Dore Numa and … as between the claimants before me, all of whom were either parties or successors-in-title to the parties in the case of Ometan v. Chief Dore Numa these parties are ESTOPPED from denying those facts which were in issue and which were material to the finding of the Court in that case. . .” (Capitals ours).
CASE 6:
In Suit No. W/3/1949 Ademola, Ag. Judge said:
“It is common groud among the claimants that the land in question is in Agbassa District in Warri. It is also admitted that this is part of the land to which judgement in the celebrated case as Agbassa Land Case (Ometan v. Chief Dore Numa…) applies. The second and third group of the claimants therefore do not dispute the first claimants claim to the land. In other words, they recognize the overlordship of the Olu of Itsekiri who is the virtual owner of the land in trust for the Itsekiri people.
CASE 7:
In Suits Nos. W/121 /57 and W/41 /57 Obaseki, J.
The judge held in substance that “Agbassa Community are tenants under native law and custom and subject to the overlordship of the Olu of Warri now replaced by Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees and that the Trustees have the right to and can convey legal estate in land either for a term of years or in fee simple”.
In SC. 67/1971 & SC. 327/1972 (Consolidated), the Supreme Court presided over by U. Udoma, G. S. Sowemimo, D. O. Ibekwe, SC.JJ on 23rd November 1973 affirmed Justice Qbaseki’s judgement in Suits Nos. W/121 /57 and W/41 /57 mentioned above.
Still, on 28th November 1973, the Supreme Court presided over by the same Judges in Suit No. SC. 328/1972 affirmed another judgement of Obaseki J. and said on this issue of the overlordship rights of the Itsekiri Communal land Trustee over Agbassa lands inter alia:
“We are satisfied that the approach of the learned judge to the issue under consideration was correct and that his decision is unimpeachable. It is right.”
CASE 8:
Here we quote an interesting case, a Suit between Urhobos and Ijaws fighting it out amongst themselves for once with neither parties calling in the Olu of Warri or any Itsekiri. This is what they had to say:
In Suit No. B/10/1934 Between AYA (on behalf of himself and The People of Ogbe-Sobo) – Plaintiffs
AND
OKORO and DOMOKOROMO and THE PEOPLE OF SABA – DEFENDANTS
The Urhobos of Ogbe-Sobo IN WESTERN URHOBO DIVISION in 1934 sued the Saba Ijaws in Warri Division claiming for a declaration of title to a piece or parcel of land lying within Warri Division. In his evidence for the first witness for the defense, Domokoromo from an Ijaw enclave in Warri Division known as Saba, stated on oath that his ancestors migrated from a place in Western Ijaw and further stated that when they came to the area the lands were unoccupied. “I said my people saw no one on the land where we are now. They saw the Olu of Jekris were there but not actually on the land we are on now. They were at BIG WARRI. The Olu of Jekris gave us the land we are on now but he made no restrictions. He just gave the land we are on now, and we have been there ever since…
“The Olu will know to whom he gave the land. I know the German Factory. It is on the Warri River. The Olu gave that land there to the Ogbe-Sobo people.
Defendants 4th witness, OMISIKUTA – an Ijaw from Saba (Ijaw enclave in Warri Division) in his evidence stated, “When my ancestors got to Saba there was no one living there. When they arrived, the Olu of Jekri owned the country and they went to give themselves to him.
When I say they gave themselves to the Olu, I mean that they went to him as he was the big man of the area and people gave themselves up to him as this was the custom in those days for protection”.
In his judgement delivered on 5/2/35 in favor of the Saba Ijaws in Warri Division, M.T.D.M. Bartley (Assistant Judge) observed as follows:
“The defendants depend on the following evidence in support of their traditional history –
The production of a lease of land to a German Company (Ex. “B”) at Ogbe Sobo Village which land though not part of the area in dispute is yet on the land shown in Ex. “A” as constituting Ogbe Sobo land. The lease is not only signed by the Ogbe Sobo Chiefs but also by Chief Dore who was head of Jekris. This tends to establish defendant’s claim that the Jekris (Itsekiris) were the original owners of the land as from the evidence; it appears that by native law and customs, people allowed to settle on the land have no right to lease a portion of it without the permission of the original owner.
It is true that the lease tends to corroborate their allegation that the Olu of Jekri has an interest in Ogbe Sobo land. It is quite possible that neither party wished to put forward Jekri Chiefs or Headmen as witnesses”
CASE 9:
In the case of Chief Sam Warri Essi and Others (for themselves and on behalf of the Agbassa people of Warri) Versus Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees (substituted for Gbesimi Emiko, Erejuwa II, the Olu of Warri) AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Western Region) reported at page 17 WNLR (1961) decided by Adeyinka Morgan, J. on the 3rd of December 1960, the claim of the Agbassa people was for a declaration that a lease executed in 1911 on behalf of the Itsekiri people by Chief Dore and Qgbe as lessors and the Government of Nigeria as lessee was NULL AND VOID. Dismissing the action Adeyinka Morgan J. observed:-
“The judgement of the then Supreme Court, starting at page 22 of Ex. A, refers to a term of settlement which included the following statement about the position of strangers.
“Where strangers require land as tenants or otherwise they can only have the same with the approval of plaintiff (Chief Dore Numa) which cannot be unreasonably refused and only the plaintiff or someone authorized by him can receive rents or tribute for any land… When rent is received by the plaintiff from such strangers it must be shared equitably with any people who have been deprived of their occupation in whole or in part by reason of the grant to the strangers.
This statement shows that custom permitted the Olu of Warri to take land from an indigene and grant to a stranger. It would therefore appear a fortiori that he was permitted to take land from one stranger to grant to another.”
CASE 10:
IN THE SUPREME COURT SUIT SC.328/1972 between Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees and Warri Divisional Planning Authority reported at page 235 of 1973 11 S.C.
The Supreme Court giving judgement in favor of the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees observed at page 244 as follows :-
“In his judgement, the learned trial Judge had no difficulty whatsoever in resolving those conflicts, after a review of the evidence as a whole he held:
(1) That the piece or parcel of land containing 393.49 acres required by the applicants, that is to say, the land in dispute, is part of the area of land which was the subject matter of Suit No. 25 of 1926 – Ometan vs Dore Numa – and that the legal estate and all rights of titular ownership in and over land in WARRI DIVISION including the land in dispute, formerly vested in and exercisable by the Olu of Warri on behalf of the Itsekiri Community are now vested in and exercisable by the first claimants (Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees) also on behalf of the Itsekiri Community.”
CASE 11:
The Supreme Court presided over by Udo-Udoma, Sowewimo and Ibekwe S.C.JJ. in Suits Nos. SC. 67/1971 and SC. 327/1972
Chief Sam. Warri Esi (for himself and on behalf of Igbudu people)
Versus
The Chief Secretary to the Federation of Nigeria & Ors,
Reported at pages 189 – 234 (1973) 11 SC.
After reviewing:-
(1) The judgement Of Obaseki J. in the said suits in the lower court;
(2) The judgement of Webber, J. and the judgement of the Privy Council in Suit No. 25/1926 – Ometan versus Dore;
(3) Judgement of Jackson, Asst. Judge in Suit No. W/44/1941 and
(4) The judgement of Ademola, Ag. Judge in Suit W/3/1949, said at Page 214 line 9 and Page 215 line 2 as follows:
“In view of these unimpeachable recurring findings by the Courts of Competent jurisdiction, there can be no question that the Agbassa, including the Igbudu, are customary tenants of the first claimants (that is the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees). Their tenure of the land occupied by them is therefore subject to the incident of customary tenancy. It is foolhardy on the part of the second claimants (that is, Chief Sam-Warri Essi for himself and on behalf of the Igbudu people) in the face of such overwhelming evidence and the findings of successive courts throughout the years to seek from time to time as soon as there is notice of acquisition and the prospects of a windfall like manna from heaven to re-litigate issues which have been clearly determined and laid to rest against them by persisting in the groundless assertion that the people of Agbassa are the absolute owners of the land in dispute which has been conclusively established as forming the land the subject matter of suit No. 25 of 1926″ (Italics by us).
THE IJAW SETTLERS IN WARRI DIVISION
The Ijaw settlers in Warri Division 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 COUNCIL AREA
CASE 12:
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 13:
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 14:
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 15:
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.
GBARAMATU IJAW ENCLAVE
CASE 16:
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 16:
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 17:
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.
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.
OLU OF WARRI TITLE
Your Excellency, we would like to say that we have been obliged to send this Memorandum to you for the following reasons amongst others:
(a) The Agbassa Urhobos on the instigation of other Urhobos have been threatening our peaceful existence in our God given land without any justification whatsoever and in complete defiance of the laws of this country. In pursuance of this, they have made several publications which clearly were calculated to incite the people, to ridicule and intimidate the Judiciary, and to force the hand of Government to take repressive measures against the Itsekiris; but all these have been ignored by the law enforcement agencies.
(b) By their actions, petitions and publications, the Urhobos and Ijaws, contrary to established facts, are seeking to embarrass the State Government as to the position of the Olu of Warri vis-a-vis Warri Division. They defy judgements of the Courts and deny the Overlordship of the Olu of Warri in order to create the impression that the Olu is not the Overlord of all lands in Warri Division and so to refuse him the legitimate title of Olu of Warri.
As evidenced by the various legal battles over lands in Warri Division herein above discussed, it is already judicially recognized that all the lands in Warri Division belong to the Olu in trust for the Itsekiri people. That was why the Instrument establishing the Itsekiri Communal Lands Rights (vesting in Trustees) Law 1959 was made to apply to the entire Division and that was why the Olu was made the only “Prescribed Authority” for Warri Division. We most humbly call on Your Excellency to help us preserve our Royalty from the treacheries of despicable and ungrateful recipients of his Highness’s benevolence.
There is abundant evidence that in the 16th and 17th centuries, well before the Agbassa customary tenants came to Warri, the Olu had been known and referred to as the Olu of Warri, “Warri” being the Kingdom over which the Olu ruled.
The word “Warri” derives from “Iwere” the name by which we the Itsekiris call our homeland. “Omiwere” or “Oma-Iwere” means the son or daughter of “Iwere” land, that is “Itsekiri”. This is to say that Iwere is the land and not the people. Through the ages the various Europeans with whom the Itsekiris had contact had employed varying corrupt versions like “Ovyere” and “Oere” by the early Portuguese, “Warri” by Captain John Adams in 1823, “Wari” in 1841 by Beecroft.
The following historical events are all in support of the case we have made above :-
(i) In 1607 the King of Portugal made a decree in which reference was made to the “King of Warri” and to “Prince Domingo” son or- the Olu of Warri.
(ii) One John Barbot, a Dutchman writing in the seventeenth century about Warri said:-
“The capital town Ovwere, which gives its name to the whole country, lies in River Forcado”
(iii) In 1682 Father Jerome Merolla da Sorrento wrote:
“Two Capuchin Missionaries together with Father Bonaventura da Firanze having just set foot in the Kingdom of Ouuerri (Warri). They were very courteously received by the King”.
(iv) P. A. Talbot wrote at page 320 of his The Peoples of Southern Nigeria:
“In 1651, according to Urbanus Cerri, the King of Warri wrote to Pope Innocent X asking him to send him missionaries for his own good and that of his subjects…”
(v) A Frenchman known as Captain Landolphe writing in the 18th century made references to the “Olu of Warri” and said that in recognition of the trade potentials of both Benin and Warri kingdoms, the King of France Louis XVI by an “Arret du Conseil d’Etat” of the 27th of May 1756 granted a charter to a company known as the “Compagnie d’Owhere et de Benin” (company of Warri and Benin). This was before and similar to the Royal Niger Company which had its charter from the King of Britain.
It is interesting also to note that records show that when an Olu was about to be installed in 1936 after an interregnum of 88 years, official references were to “Olu of Warri”. At a stage before the coronation, however, the UPU (Urhobo Progress Union), under the leadership of the Chief Mukoro Mowoe, forced the hand of Government to change the title to “Olu of Itsekiri” on the arguments that the entire Urhobo Division may be assumed to be under the suzerainty of the Olu since the Urhobo Division was part of the then Warri Province. This change was an exception to the general rule. No ruler anywhere in the world, whether King, Oba, Sheikh or Emir is known by the name of his tribe; his title always derives from the name of the territory over which he rules. The Itsekiris therefore did not take kindly to this preposterous exception and in due course, in 1952, after a bloody riot and inquiry relating thereto, justice was done and the misnomer of Olu of Itsekiri was rightly corrected to Olu of Warri, in keeping with historical facts. Even so, this was not done without allaying the alleged fears of the Urhobos by changing the name of the erstwhile “Warri Province” to “Delta Province” and confining the name of Warri to Itsekiri Administrative Division. It would appear that whatever concessions were made to appease the Urhobos at the expense of Itsekiris never satisfied them. They would always ask for more like the legendary Oliver Twist. Every time there was a change of government, there was always a demand on issues long ago settled by previous governments; a renewed pressure for extortion from the Itsekiri for the gratification of themselves.
THE ITSEKIRI LAND TRUST
Pursuant to their deliberate misrepresentations of historical facts in Warri Division, the Urhobo and Ijaw settlers in the Division tend to depict the Itsekiri Land Trust as an Instrument of oppression. Now that it has been clearly shown that neither of these settlers has any legal claims to any lands in the Division, we will try to describe briefly the beginning and the position of Itsekiri Land Trust in Warri Division and show why its existence is seen as a bitter pill to our adversaries.
Following some internal re-organization in Warri, an “Olu Fund” was created in 1924. The first Trustees were Chiefs Dore, Ogbobine and Omagbemi. The Olu Fund later became known as “Itsekiri National Fund”, in 1940. Monies collected on behalf of the Olu in respect of land dues were paid into this fund and this arrangement continued until 1958 when the government of the Western Region of Nigeria enacted the Communal Lands Rights (vesting in Trustees) Law, 1958 and the Itsekiri Trust Instrument in 1959. Thus, it is clear that the creation of 1959 of the Warri Division (Itsekiri Communal Land) Trust Instrument was only a statutory recognition of an existing practice then known as Itsekiri National Fund with roots dating 35 years earlier.
Why must those who enjoy our benevolence want to determine for us the course of our history and the use or organization of our National Fund? The height of impudence!
NO APARTHEID IN WARRI DIVISION
By the 1963 Census, the four main minority ethnic groups in the Midwest were:-
Akoko-Edo – 112,186
Isoko – 134,157
Warri – 145,060
Western Ijaw – 231,746
The Urhobos (in Eastern and Western Urhobo Divisions) were 491,736. The three other minority tribes named above (Akoko-Edo, Isoko and Western Ijaw) do not have the “survival problems” that the Itsekiris have always had in Warri Division. For example, during Elections, the Urhobos of Agbassa in Warri Division would team up with their kith and kin in their home divisions of Western and Eastern Urhobo and, in collaboration with the Ijaws, contest elections against Itsekiri candidates in Warri Division. Once there were six Urhobo parliamentarians voted for in Eastern and Western Urhobo Divisions to the Western House of Assembly while there were only two seats for Warri Division. One of these two seats in Warri Division was hotly contested and won by an Urhobo candidate on the ticket of his tribesmen from their home divisions.
[Editors Insertion: This trend continues even today with the Ijaw and Urhobo teaming up with their kith and kin from outside Warri to allocate House of Assembly seats and Local Government Chairmanship and Councilor seats in the three Warri Local Government Areas to themselves.]
We do not think the Nigerian brand of democracy implies the extinction of any ethnic group no matter how small it may be. Our total extinction in the name of urbanization or development with unrestricted migration into our homeland without protective measures for our security and identity must be deplored. It was the recognition of this need that gave rise to the Special Minorities Area Provisions in our Electoral Laws in the Pre-1966 years. This was done to save the Itsekiris from extinction and we do fervently hope it will still be entrenched in our future constitution for the same purpose – that is to say, for our survival as a group.
ITSEKIRIS IN SAPELE AFFAIRS
It is relevant at this stage to make an observation with regard to Sapele. Early in the 1940’s, the Itsekiris and Urhobos joined issues in the High Court and then in the West African Court of Appeal over the ownership of Sapele. The Itsekiris lost the legal battle and ever since have had no further troubles with the Urhobo in Sapele even though the Itsekiri far outnumber the Urhobos in there. There is in Sapele, an Itsekiri enclave just as we have Agbassa in Warri. It is called Oguanjugbage. All these notwithstanding, the Itsekiris in Sapele remain law-abiding. We ask for a reciprocal attitude from the Urhobos in Warri.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Your Excellency, we would like to say that we Itsekiris are peace-loving and law-abiding people. We have no territorial ambitions whatsoever, and do not seek to lord it over any ethnic group anywhere. Nonetheless, we will constitutionally resist any affront from anywhere to our social and traditional institutions and/or any attempt by our neighbors as it were, to undermine our very existence or stampede Government by blindfolding and deliberately distorting facts to deprive us of our legal and inalienable rights. This we hold true and shall in no wise compromise: the Warri Division [Editors’ Insertion: Present day Warri South, North and South-West Local Government Areas] is the Historical, Legal and Political Home of the Itsekiris and to this end we seek your protection in your avowed crusade for Justice and Fair Play.
[EDITORIAL NOTE: It would certainly be in the interest of professional journalism to counterbalance the presentation of the foregoing legal facts by the Itsekiri Leaders of Thought with cases in favor of the Agbassa Urhobo and the Ijaw in the three Warri Local Government Areas. The fact, however, is that there are no such cases whatsoever. What is available instead are “scholarly” arguments and claims that are largely misrepresentations of historical facts that were already solidly established well before these attempted misrepresentations ensued. As a matter of policy and principle therefore, we present only the facts. The one case of an Urhobo court victory – re: 281.1 acres of land in Idimi-Sobo in Okere – is presented in the Facts About Okere Page of this Blog.]
