TGM Amiwero Esq.

Call Directions Contact the business

TGM Amiwero Esq. TGM Amiwero Esq., is a General Legal, Corporate, Property and Project Finance Consultant.

22/09/2026

Human Rights Abuse

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM THAT THE MULTI-ETHNIC CHARACTER OF WARRI NEGATES THE ITSEKIRI CLAIM OVER WARRIA REBUTTAL ...
12/09/2026

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM THAT THE MULTI-ETHNIC CHARACTER OF WARRI NEGATES THE ITSEKIRI CLAIM OVER WARRI

A REBUTTAL TO APST. G. O. YAMUNUMA

THE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL RECORD OF THE ITSEKIRI NATION IN WARRI

BY TGM AMIWERO, ESQ., AICMC.

The central error in Apst. G. O. Yamunuma’s intervention is simple:

It confuses the subsequent expansion of the colonial use of the name “WARRI” with the historical identity of the Itsekiri Nation, its traditional institution and its customary land rights in WARRI.

Nobody disputes that the British subsequently administered a large and multi-ethnic territory under the name WARRI Province and later WARRI Division.

But that does not answer the fundamental question:

What existed in WARRI before the British converted the name into a wider colonial administrative designation?

The answer is clear:

The Itsekiri Nation, its traditional political institution and the Olu of WARRI.

The colonial administrative map cannot be used retrospectively to erase the history that preceded it.

1. WHAT WAS WARRI BEFORE THE COLONIAL ADMINISTRATIVE MAP?

There must first be a distinction between WARRI as a historic Itsekiri centre and traditional institution and WARRI as a later colonial administrative designation.

Ode-Itsekiri was historically associated with the original WARRI. T. E. A. Salubi's 1952 account itself records the successive application of the name WARRI—from the original Itsekiri settlement to the trading and government station and subsequently to wider administrative territories.

That is fatal to the argument that WARRI's historical identity began with the British administrative map.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Question: Was there a historic political entity associated with the Itsekiri Nation before the creation of WARRI Province?

Answer: YES.

Question: Was Ode-Itsekiri historically associated with the original WARRI?

Answer: YES.

Question: Did the British subsequently extend the geographical application of the name WARRI?

Answer: YES.

Question: Did that later administrative expansion abolish the pre-existing traditional institution of the Itsekiri Nation?

Answer: NO.

Therefore:

The subsequent colonial expansion of the geographical meaning of WARRI cannot erase its pre-existing Itsekiri identity.

2. WARRI PROVINCE WAS MULTI-ETHNIC. SO WHAT?

This is the foundation upon which much of the opposing argument rests.

It is also the weakest foundation.

Yes, WARRI Province contained Itsekiri, Urhobo, Ijaw and other communities.

But WARRI Province was a colonial administrative creation.

A colonial province was an instrument of administration. It was not an ethnic title deed.

The British could place several peoples within one administrative territory without thereby declaring that every people within it owned every piece of land in that territory.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Question: Did WARRI Province contain Urhobo communities?

Answer: YES.

Question: Did it contain Ijaw communities?

Answer: YES.

Question: Did it contain Itsekiri communities?

Answer: YES.

Question: Does the presence of several ethnic groups within a colonial province extinguish the original Itsekiri Nation's pre-existing customary rights to Warri?

Answer: NO.

Question: Does it establish that the Itsekiri Nation had no traditional authority or communal land rights to WARRI?

Answer: NO.

Therefore, the statement that WARRI Province was multi-ethnic proves only that the colonial province was multi-ethnic.

It does not disprove the historical rights and identity of the Itsekiri Nation to WARRI.

3. THE PRESENCE OF URHOBO COMMUNITIES IN WARRI DOES NOT MAKE WARRI URHOBO LAND

This is the fundamental fallacy.

Residence is not synonymous with title.

Occupation is not synonymous with radical title.

Customary tenancy is not synonymous with ownership.

The Nigerian judicial record concerning WARRI lands demonstrates this distinction.

In the litigation concerning Igbudu and other lands in WARRI, the courts considered the relationship between the Agbassa community and the customary authority of the Olu of WARRI. The trial court found the Agbassa community to be customary tenants under the overlordship of the Olu of WARRI, and the Supreme Court record discusses the legal estate historically vested in the Olu of WARRI on behalf of the Itsekiri Nation and subsequently vested in the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees.

The point is decisive.

The fact that Urhobo people occupied land in WARRI did not, by itself, transform that occupation into absolute ownership.

Therefore:

“Urhobo people lived in WARRI, therefore WARRI was Urhobo land”

is not a proposition established by the historical or judicial record.

4. JEKRI-SOBO DOES NOT DESTROY THE ITSEKIRI CLAIM

The opposing argument relies heavily on Jekri-Sobo because both Itsekiri and Urhobo communities were administered within that arrangement.

But Jekri-Sobo was a colonial administrative arrangement.

It cannot be converted into a declaration of original ownership of every parcel within it.

More importantly, the colonial administration subsequently reorganised the arrangement. Salubi's 1952 account records the 1950 administrative changes and the creation of an Itsekiri Division following the separation of the relevant administrative components.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Question: Were Urhobo communities administered within Jekri-Sobo?

Answer: YES.

Question: Was Jekri-Sobo itself a colonial administrative arrangement?

Answer: YES.

Question: Did its creation extinguish the traditional authority of the Itsekiri Nation?

Answer: NO.

Question: Did its existence automatically vest title to every parcel of land in every ethnic group residing within it?

Answer: NO.

Therefore:

Jekri-Sobo establishes colonial administrative coexistence. It does not extinguish Itsekiri customary rights.

5. THE BRITISH DID NOT CREATE THE ITSEKIRI NATION NOR THE WARRI KINGDOM

This point requires no apology.

The Itsekiri Nation and its traditional political institution predated British colonial administration.

The British did not arrive in an empty geographical space and create the Itsekiri Nation nor it's traditional political institutions by administrative fiat.

They encountered an existing people, existing settlements, existing customary institutions and an existing traditional authority.

The colonial administration subsequently imposed its own administrative structures upon that existing reality.

Therefore, the argument that:

“WARRI Division contained several ethnic groups”

starts from the wrong historical premise.

The proper question is:

What pre-existing traditional and customary institution did the British encounter and subsequently administer?

The answer includes:

THE ITSEKIRI NATION AND THE OLU OF WARRI.

6. THE OLU OF WARRI IS NOT A COLONIAL INVENTION

The attempt to reduce the Olu of WARRI to a product of colonial administration is historically untenable.

The very historical controversy surrounding the designation of the Olu demonstrates the pre-existing Itsekiri traditional institution associated with WARRI.

Salubi's 1952 account itself discusses the historical relationship between the designation Olu Itsekiri and the later designation Olu of WARRI.

The existence of debate over the title does not establish the non-existence of the institution.

On the contrary, it demonstrates that the traditional institution was sufficiently established to become the subject of historical and political controversy.

The important point is this:

The British did not create the traditional authority of the Itsekiri Nation merely by using the name WARRI in colonial administration.

7. THE 1959 ITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LANDS TRUST IS A MATTER OF LAW, NOT POLITICAL RHETORIC

One of the most important pieces of evidence ignored in the opposing narrative is the Warri Division (Itsekiri Communal Lands) Trust Instrument, 1959.

Its significance is not merely historical.

Its legal effect was subsequently litigated before the Nigerian courts.

In Chief Sam Warri Esi v. Chief Secretary to the Federation & Ors, the judicial record expressly considered the Trust Instrument and stated that the rights in or over land in WARRI Division exercisable on behalf of the Itsekiri Nation by the Olu of WARRI were vested in the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees.

That is an important legal record.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Question: Was there a Warri Division (Itsekiri Communal Lands) Trust Instrument, 1959?

Answer: YES.

Question: Did it vest specified communal rights previously exercisable by the Olu of WARRI in the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees?

Answer: YES.

Question: Did the Nigerian courts subsequently adjudicate disputes involving those rights?

Answer: YES.

Question: Can the Itsekiri communal land claim therefore honestly be dismissed as a recent political invention?

Answer: NO.

8. ITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LAND TRUSTEES v. WARRI DIVISIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITY CANNOT BE IGNORED

The Supreme Court decided Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees v. Warri Divisional Planning Authority & Ors, Suit No. SC.328/1972, on 28 November 1973. The case is reported at [1973] 11 S.C. 235.

This was not a political meeting.

It was litigation before the highest court of the land concerning land and the legal interests claimed by the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees.

The judicial record concerned the legal estate and rights historically exercised by the Olu of WARRI on behalf of the Itsekiri Nation and subsequently vested in the Trustees.

The significance is obvious:

The Itsekiri communal land interest in WARRI was sufficiently real and legally cognisable to be litigated before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

The opposing narrative cannot simply jump from the existence of Urhobo and Ijaw communities to the conclusion that the Itsekiri communal claim therefore disappears.

9. IDUNDUN v. OKUMAGBA DIRECTLY INVOLVED THE ITSEKIRI CLAIM IN OKERE, WARRI

The case of D.O. Idundun & Ors v. Daniel Okumagba, Supreme Court of Nigeria, S.C. 309/74, decided in October 1976, concerned land at Okere, WARRI.

The parties included:

- members of the Ogitsi family of Okere, WARRI;
- the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees; and
- Erejuwa II, the Olu of WARRI, for himself and on behalf of the Itsekiri people.

The claim pleaded that, under Itsekiri customary law, the land was the property of the Ogitsi family subject to the overlordship of the Olu of WARRI, with that interest vested in and exercisable by the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees pursuant to the 1959 legal instruments.

It is important to be precise:

The Supreme Court did not grant the appellants the declaration they sought.

But that does not assist the opposing argument in the way suggested.

The case demonstrates that the Itsekiri customary land system, the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees and the customary authority of the Olu of WARRI were directly litigated in respect of land at Okere, WARRI.

The Supreme Court's decision therefore cannot honestly be cited as authority for the proposition that the Itsekiri have no customary land history or customary land rights in WARRI.

Indeed, the case has been specifically discussed in the Journal of African Law as a case concerning Itsekiri customary land law.

10. THE JACKSON LINE DOES NOT DESTROY ITSEKIRI TERRITORIAL RIGHTS

The 1941 Jackson settlement concerned a specific boundary dispute involving Itsekiri and Oghareki/Oghara interests.

It should be understood for what it was.

It was evidence of the formal delineation of a particular boundary between Itsekiri and neighbouring Urhobo interests.

It was not a declaration that the Itsekiri had no territory.

Therefore:

The Jackson Line is evidence of an Itsekiri territorial interest being formally delineated; it is not evidence of the absence of Itsekiri territory.

11. “ADMINISTRATION IS NOT OWNERSHIP” — EXACTLY

The author states:

«“Administration is not ownership.”»

AGREED.

But that principle destroys the opposing argument.

If colonial administration is not ownership, then the mere fact that Urhobo communities were placed within WARRI Province or WARRI Division cannot establish that the Urhobo owned all the land within that administrative territory.

The same applies to Ijaw communities.

A colonial administrative boundary is not a communal title deed.

Neither is ethnic population.

The proper question is:

What is the root of title?

In the Itsekiri case, the historical and legal record includes:

- the historical Itsekiri Nation;
- the traditional institution of the Olu of WARRI;
- Itsekiri customary law;
- the Warri Division (Itsekiri Communal Lands) Trust Instrument, 1959;
- the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees;
- Supreme Court litigation concerning Itsekiri communal land rights; and
- judicial records concerning the customary relationship between the Olu of WARRI and communities occupying particular WARRI lands.

That evidence cannot be displaced by the mere assertion that “other ethnic groups lived there.”

12. THE CLAIM THAT “WARRI BELONGS TO ITSEKIRI, URHOBO AND IJAW” DOES NOT ANSWER THE LAND QUESTION

This is perhaps the most politically attractive but historically and legally imprecise conclusion.

Land title is not determined by ethnic arithmetic.

The existence of three or more ethnic groups within a colonial administrative area does not mean that the land automatically became a communal property of all those ethnic groups.

The relevant questions are:

Who established the original traditional political order?

What known and original customary law governed the particular Warri land?

Who exercised the relevant customary authority?

What was the root of title?

What did the colonial records recognise?

What did the courts subsequently determine?

The presence of Urhobo or Ijaw communities within the broader WARRI administrative territory does not convert them into owners of the historic Warri or extinguish Itsekiri customary rights.

THE FINAL CROSS-EXAMINATION

Let us therefore ask the questions the opposing narrative cannot answer by simply pointing to a colonial map.

1. WAS THERE A PRE-COLONIAL ITSEKIRI POLITICAL AND TRADITIONAL ORDER ASSOCIATED WITH WARRI?

YES.

2. WAS ODE-ITSEKIRI HISTORICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ORIGINAL WARRI?

YES.

3. DID THE BRITISH SUBSEQUENTLY EXTEND THE NAME “WARRI” TO A MUCH LARGER ADMINISTRATIVE TERRITORY?

YES.

4. DID THAT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPANSION ABOLISH THE HISTORICAL IDENTITY OF THE ITSEKIRI NATION OR WARRI?

NO.

5. DID THE PRESENCE OF URHOBO COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE COLONIAL WARRI ADMINISTRATIVE AREA AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFER TITLE TO THOSE COMMUNITIES?

NO.

6. DID THE PRESENCE OF IJAW COMMUNITIES AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFER TITLE TO THOSE COMMUNITIES?

NO.

7. DID THE WARri DIVISION (ITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LANDS) TRUST INSTRUMENT, 1959, EXIST?

YES.

8. DID THE COURTS ADJUDICATE DISPUTES CONCERNING THE RIGHTS VESTED IN THE ITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LAND TRUSTEES?

YES.

9. WAS THE OLU OF WARRI BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN IDUNDUN v. OKUMAGBA FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF THE ITSEKIRI PEOPLE?

YES.

10. DID THE CLAIM IN IDUNDUN v. OKUMAGBA EXPRESSLY INVOKE ITSEKIRI CUSTOMARY LAW AND THE OVERLORDSHIP OF THE OLU OF WARRI?

YES.

11. DOES THE FACT THAT THE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THAT PARTICULAR APPEAL MEAN THAT THE ITSEKIRI CUSTOMARY LAND SYSTEM NEVER EXISTED?

NO.

12. DOES THE MULTI-ETHNIC CHARACTER OF COLONIAL WARRI EXTINGUISH THE HISTORICAL RIGHTS OF THE ITSEKIRI NATION?

NO.

13. DOES THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER ETHNIC COMMUNITIES IN WARRI AUTHORISE THE ERASURE OF THE ITSEKIRI NATION FROM THE HISTORY OF WARRI?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

CONCLUSION

The argument advanced by Apst. G. O. Yamunuma rests on a fundamental historical error:

It treats the colonial administrative meaning of WARRI as though it were the beginning and end of the history of WARRI.

It is not.

THE ITSEKIRI NATION PREDATES THE BRITISH COLONIAL ADMINISTRATIVE MAP.

THE TRADITIONAL INSTITUTION OF THE OLU OF WARRI PREDATES WARRI PROVINCE AND WARRI DIVISION.

ODE-ITSEKIRI PREDATES THE COLONIAL WARRI ADMINISTRATION.

The British subsequently administered a wider and multi-ethnic territory under the name WARRI. That historical fact is not in dispute.

What is disputed is the attempt to use that administrative development to erase the historical and customary rights of the Itsekiri Nation.

That attempt fails.

The existence of Urhobo and Ijaw communities within the wider colonial WARRI administrative territory does not make the historic Itsekiri Nation disappear.

It does not convert every parcel occupied by an Urhobo or Ijaw community into Urhobo or Ijaw ancestral land.

It does not extinguish Itsekiri customary law.

It does not extinguish the traditional institution of the Olu of WARRI.

And it does not erase the legal history of the Warri Division (Itsekiri Communal Lands) Trust Instrument, 1959 or the subsequent Supreme Court litigation concerning Itsekiri communal land rights.

The judicial record is particularly important because it demonstrates that the Itsekiri claim is not merely a modern political slogan.

In the WARRI land litigation, the courts dealt directly with the rights historically associated with the Olu of WARRI and subsequently vested in the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees.

In Idundun v. Okumagba, the Olu of WARRI appeared before the Supreme Court for himself and on behalf of the Itsekiri people, while the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees were also parties to the litigation concerning land at Okere, WARRI.

The conclusion is therefore straightforward:

THE FACT THAT WARRI BECAME A MULTI-ETHNIC COLONIAL ADMINISTRATIVE AREA DOES NOT EXTINGUISH THE HISTORICAL IDENTITY, CUSTOMARY RIGHTS OR TERRITORIAL CLAIMS OF THE ITSEKIRI NATION.

The colonial map did not create the Itsekiri Nation.

The colonial administration did not create the Olu of WARRI.

The presence of other ethnic communities did not erase Itsekiri history.

And the subsequent use of “WARRI” as a wider administrative designation cannot be retrospectively used as an instrument for dispossessing or historically displacing the Itsekiri Nation.

WARRI CANNOT BE DEFINED SOLELY BY THE COLONIAL ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES DRAWN AROUND IT.

THE HISTORY OF WARRI DID NOT BEGIN WITH WARRI PROVINCE.

THE HISTORY OF WARRI CANNOT BE WRITTEN WITHOUT THE ITSEKIRI NATION.

And where the question concerns particular lands, the answer must come from their respective roots of title and the applicable customary and judicial records—not from the mere fact that another ethnic group subsequently lived within the wider colonial administrative area.

The issue, therefore, is not whether Urhobo or Ijaw people have a history in WARRI.

They do.

The issue is whether their presence erases the historical and legally cognisable rights of the Itsekiri Nation.

IT DOES NOT.

THE ITSEKIRI NATION WILL NOT BE WRITTEN OUT OF THE HISTORY OF WARRI BY THE REDEFINITION OF A COLONIAL ADMINISTRATIVE NAME.

THE MAP DID NOT CREATE ITSEKIRI HISTORY.

COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION DID NOT CREATE THE ITSEKIRI NATION.

AND THE MULTI-ETHNIC CHARACTER OF COLONIAL WARRI DOES NOT EXTINGUISH ITSEKIRI RIGHTS.

TGM AMIWERO ESQ., AICMC.
©2026.

A SURGICAL REBUTTAL TO EJIRO EMUERE’S CLAIMS ON THE WARRI UNITY CUP, TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY AND THE WARRI QUESTIONByT.G.M...
16/08/2026

A SURGICAL REBUTTAL TO EJIRO EMUERE’S CLAIMS ON THE WARRI UNITY CUP, TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY AND THE WARRI QUESTION

By

T.G.M. Amiwero Esq., AICMC

Mr. Ejiro Emuere’s publication, titled “Permanent Peace Based on Justice is Set to Return to Warri South as the Itsekiri Monarch & People Recognize the Existence of Agbarha Warri King and Kingdom,” fundamentally misconstrues an act of royal courtesy and peace-building as a legal recognition of territorial sovereignty or proprietary entitlement.

That conclusion is unsustainable.

1. A RESERVED SEAT IS NOT RECOGNITION OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY

The invitation extended by His Majesty, Ogiame Atuwatse III, CFR, to the Ovie of Agbarha and the reservation of a seat for him at the Warri Unity Cup cannot reasonably be construed as recognition of an independent kingdom exercising co-equal territorial authority over Warri.

Royal hospitality is not a conveyance of title.
Courtesy is not a constitutional instrument.
A peace initiative is not a judicial declaration.

The obvious and proper interpretation is that the Olu is promoting peace, civility and harmonious coexistence among communities within the wider Warri environment.

To manufacture a proprietary or territorial concession from such an occasion is to attribute a legal consequence to conduct that contains none.

2. THE PALACE DIRECTIVE ON THE WORD “SLAVE” DOES NOT ALTER THE LAW

The reported directive of the Palace that Itsekiris should desist from referring to their ethnic neighbours as “slaves” should be understood as a commendable statement on human dignity and contemporary inter-ethnic relations.

It does not, however, determine questions of land title, traditional jurisdiction, indigeneity or political entitlement.

Most importantly, customary tenancy must never be equated with slavery. Customary tenancy is a legal relationship recognised under customary land law; slavery is an entirely different and morally abhorrent concept.

Consequently, removing an offensive expression from contemporary discourse cannot, by itself, extinguish or alter any proprietary relationship established by law.

3. ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE REWRITTEN BY POLITICAL NARRATIVE

The historical and judicial record concerning land in the Agbassa/Igbudu area cannot simply be displaced by contemporary commentary.

In Chief Sam Warri Esi & Ors v. Chief Secretary to the Federation of Nigeria & Ors, arising from SC.67/1971 and SC.327/1972, and reported in (1973) 11 S.C. (Reprint) 115, the Supreme Court considered claims relating to compensation for land at Igbudu acquired for public purposes and the earlier litigation concerning the status of occupation of the land.

Likewise, Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees v. Warri Divisional Planning Authority & Ors, SC.328/1972, reported as 3 PLR (1973) 35 (SC), is a genuine Supreme Court authority concerning the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees and land in Warri.

These authorities must be read according to the lands, parties, pleadings and findings actually before the Court. But neither can they responsibly be erased from the historical and legal record simply because their implications are inconvenient to a contemporary narrative.

4. THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP AND THE KINGSHIP OF WARRI

The Itsekiri people have no difficulty acknowledging the existence of other communities and their traditional institutions.

Agbarha may preserve its traditional institution. Other Urhobo and Ijaw communities may equally preserve theirs.

But the existence of multiple traditional rulers does not mean that every ruler possesses the same traditional title, historical status or territorial jurisdiction.

The Olu of Warri is the King of Warri. Other traditional rulers may exercise customary authority over their respective communities or clans; that does not, by itself, make them the King of Warri or confer upon them co-equal authority over the Warri Kingdom.

Accordingly, the Olu's willingness to engage another traditional ruler peacefully does not require the Itsekiri people to surrender the historical identity, institution or title of the Olu of Warri.

5. TRADITIONAL RECOGNITION IS NOT LAND TITLE

Mr. Emuere's use of the word “recognize” requires precision.

If he means recognition of the existence and dignity of Agbarha people, there is no controversy.

If he means recognition of an Agbarha traditional institution, that is likewise a separate matter.

But if he means that the Olu's invitation constitutes recognition of an independent kingdom possessing co-equal proprietary or territorial rights over Warri, he should produce the instrument, proclamation or judicial decision upon which that extraordinary conclusion is based.

A reserved seat at a football tournament is none of these.

Land title remains a question of law and evidence. The Supreme Court's decision in Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9–10 S.C. 227 remains a leading authority on the recognised methods of proving title to land. It must, however, be confined to the land, parties and evidence actually adjudicated upon.

6. A LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE CANNOT ALTER ESTABLISHED LAW

The proposed establishment of a traditional rulers' committee in Warri South may be useful for dialogue and peaceful coexistence, subject to the applicable law.

But no local government committee can create a kingdom, confer title to land, overturn a superior court's judgment or redefine the traditional jurisdiction of the Olu of Warri.

Dialogue is valuable precisely because it does not purport to be adjudication.

CONCLUSION

The appeal for peace is welcome.

What cannot be accepted, however, is the attempt to convert a gesture of royal hospitality into a purported legal recognition of territorial sovereignty.

The position is straightforward:

The Olu can extend friendship without surrendering the identity of the Warri Kingdom.

The Itsekiri can respect their neighbours without conceding every proprietary claim advanced in their name.

Other communities can preserve their traditional institutions without thereby becoming the King of Warri.

And peaceful coexistence does not require the abandonment of established legal rights.

A reserved seat is not a conveyance.
A handshake is not a judgment.
A peace initiative is not a declaration of title.

The road to lasting peace in Warri must therefore rest on truth, historical integrity, respect for the law, lawful dialogue and mutual respect—not on manufactured legal conclusions from ceremonial gestures.

T.G.M. Amiwero Esq., AICMC

A LEGAL RESPONSE TO THE RECENT PRESS CONFERENCE BY ONE GROSSLY IGNORANT AND INTELLECTUALLY SHALLOW MR. VICTOR OKUMAGBABy...
26/06/2026

A LEGAL RESPONSE TO THE RECENT PRESS CONFERENCE BY ONE GROSSLY IGNORANT AND INTELLECTUALLY SHALLOW MR. VICTOR OKUMAGBA

By

T.G.M. Amiwero Esq., AICMC

Recent public statements credited to one Mr. Victor Okumagba concerning the Warri Federal Constituency ward delineation exercise deserve a measured legal response. While every citizen is constitutionally entitled to express political opinions, opinions should not be presented as settled legal or historical facts where they remain disputed.

The rule of law demands precision rather than rhetoric.

Majority Status Cannot Be Created by Political Declaration

The said Mr. Okumagba reportedly asserted that the Ijaws are now the majority in the Warri Federal Constituency and that the Urhobos are the majority in Warri South Local Government Area.

With respect, these are political assertions, not legally established facts.

Neither the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Electoral Act nor any judgment of the Supreme Court has declared any ethnic nationality to be the majority in either Warri Federal Constituency or Warri South Local Government Area.

Electoral wards are administrative units created for electoral convenience. They are not constitutional instruments for determining ethnic majority, indigenous status or customary ownership of land.

Indeed, Nigeria has not conducted any post-independence official population census based on ethnicity capable of legally establishing such sweeping conclusions.

Consequently, majority status cannot be proclaimed at a press conference; it must be established by credible demographic evidence where the issue legally arises.

Electoral Delineation Does Not Determine Historical Ownership

It is equally important to emphasise that electoral delineation and customary ownership of land are separate legal questions.

The Supreme Court judgment directing INEC to undertake a fresh delineation did not adjudicate ownership of the Warri Kingdom, did not determine indigenous status, and did not declare any ethnic nationality to be the majority within the Warri Federal Constituency.

To suggest otherwise attributes legal consequences to the judgment which it simply did not pronounce.

The constitutional responsibility of INEC is electoral administration—not the determination of customary title or historical ownership.

The Claim That "Nothing Can Be Done" Is Legally Incorrect

Perhaps the most legally inaccurate statement attributed to Mr. Okumagba is the assertion that because INEC has uploaded the delineation into its portal, "there is nothing anybody can do."

That proposition is inconsistent with settled Nigerian constitutional law.

Every administrative action undertaken by INEC remains subject to judicial review where there are allegations of:

- breach of the Constitution;
- non-compliance with the Electoral Act;
- violation of the Supreme Court's judgment;
- denial of fair hearing; or
- breach of the rules of natural justice.

The courts have repeatedly set aside completed administrative actions where due process was not observed.

The upload of a document onto an administrative portal does not place the exercise beyond judicial scrutiny.

Fair Hearing Remains a Constitutional Imperative

One issue that continues to attract legitimate legal concern is whether all persons whose constitutional and electoral interests were directly affected by the delineation proceedings were afforded an opportunity to be heard.

Section 36(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to fair hearing.

If any indigenous community with a direct legal interest was not joined in proceedings that substantially affected its constitutional rights, that raises serious constitutional questions capable of judicial examination.

The right to fair hearing cannot be defeated by administrative implementation.

Political Agreements Should Not Be Misrepresented

Mr. Okumagba reportedly suggested that the President directed that all political offices should rotate among the ethnic nationalities.

If, as publicly understood, the Memorandum of Understanding relates only to the proposed new Warri Federal Constituency, then extending its provisions to the existing constituency would amount to a mischaracterisation of the agreement.

Political agreements speak for themselves through their express terms.

They should not be enlarged by public commentary.

Resort to Derogatory Language Does Not Strengthen a Legal Argument

Describing the Itsekiri as "foolish" for exercising their constitutional right to challenge governmental action adds nothing to legal discourse.

Section 6 of the Constitution vests judicial powers in the courts.

Every Nigerian citizen and every community possesses an unquestionable constitutional right to seek judicial interpretation of governmental action.

Indeed, the development of constitutional law depends upon citizens approaching the courts whenever genuine disputes arise.

To ridicule that constitutional right is inconsistent with democratic values.

The Narrative of Historical Oppression Requires Objective Evidence

The assertion that the Urhobo and Ijaw peoples have been oppressed for decades is a historical and political proposition requiring objective evidence.

Conversely, the Itsekiri also maintain that they have suffered displacement, violent attacks on their ancestral communities during the Warri crisis, and sustained challenges to their traditional homeland.

These competing narratives cannot be resolved by political speeches.

They require careful historical inquiry, judicial determination where necessary, and mutual respect among all communities.

The Way Forward

The future of the Warri Federal Constituency cannot be secured through triumphalist declarations of victory or claims that one ethnic nationality has politically conquered another.

The Constitution recognises Nigeria as a federation of diverse peoples whose coexistence depends upon justice, fairness and respect for the rule of law.

If the delineation exercise complies with the Constitution, it will withstand judicial scrutiny.

If it does not, the courts remain constitutionally empowered to provide appropriate remedies.

That is how constitutional democracies function.

Ultimately, no press conference can determine the historical ownership of Warri, confer indigenous status, extinguish customary rights, or place governmental actions beyond the reach of the courts.

Those questions remain matters of law, evidence and constitutional adjudication—not political proclamation.

Finally, the Urhobo Nation should endeavor to avoid sending intellectually hollow individuals to represent her interests in public discourse

T.G.M. Amiwero Esq., AICMC

Address

Asaba
234

Telephone

07031949961

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when TGM Amiwero Esq. posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to TGM Amiwero Esq.:

Shortcuts

Share

Category