RE: A DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF LAW, HISTORY AND FACTS, SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
OPEN LETTER IN TOTAL REJECTION OF ONESIOSAN S. OGHOLAJA ESQ.’S DISTORTED NARRATIVE ON WARRI
DATE: 17/4/2026
RE: A DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF LAW, HISTORY AND FACTS, SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
The attention of Concerned Stakeholders of Warri Federal Constituency has been drawn to the lengthy but fundamentally misleading write-up authored by one Onesiosan S. Ogholaja Esq., which attempts to clothe long-discredited claims in the borrowed robe of legal authority.
Let it be stated from the outset, without ambiguity and without apology, that entire write-up is a calculated distortion of law, a selective manipulation of history and a desperate attempt to elevate localized disputes into false universal conclusions.
What has been presented is not truth, it is advocacy without foundation.
THE FALSE CLAIM OF “SETTLED LAW”
The repeated assertion that “Ijaws have no claim” or are “judicially barred” is not only misleading, it is legally untenable and jurisprudentially reckless.
Courts determine specific disputes between specific parties over specific parcels of land. They do not and cannot, extinguish the ancestral rights of an entire people across generations.
The reliance on Suit W/148/56 is a classic example of legal misrepresentation. That case dealt with a defined claim over a particular land area. It did not determine ownership of all Warri South, nor did it pronounce on the identity or existence of the Ogbe-Ijoh people as a whole.
To stretch that judgment into a blanket declaration that Ogbe-Ijoh people are “aliens” in Warri South is not law, it is a deliberate abuse of legal interpretation.
No Nigerian court has the power to legislate identity or erase ancestral ownership across time.
That is not jurisprudence.
That is propaganda.
MISUSE OF SUBSEQUENT CASES
The references to W/277/2012 and W/147/2020 further expose the fragility of the argument.
These were procedural rulings, not substantive determinations of ownership.
A refusal of joinder is not a declaration of title.
A preliminary objection is not a judgment on land ownership.
Yet, these are being paraded as conclusive proof. That is not law, it is intellectual manipulation.
THE “CUSTOMARY TENANCY” FALLACY EXPOSED
The claim that Gbaramatu and other Ijaw communities are “customary tenants” collapses completely under legal scrutiny.
Customary tenancy requires:
A valid grant
Acknowledgment of a landlord
Continuous payment of tribute
Where is the evidence that Ijaw kingdoms accepted the Olu of Warri as landlord?
Where is the proof of tribute paid by Ogbe-Ijoh or Gbaramatu as political entities?
There is none, even within the cited cases, what exists are isolated arrangements involving individuals, not a system binding entire kingdoms.
You cannot convert isolated contact into permanent subjugation, that is not law, that is exaggeration.
COLONIAL CASES CANNOT OVERRIDE MODERN LAW
The heavy reliance on colonial-era cases such as W/124/76 exposes a deeper weakness.
Colonial courts handled fragmented disputes under administrative bias and limited understanding of indigenous systems. Their rulings were narrow and context-specific, not universal declarations.
Modern law has since clarified the position.
In Shell v. Tiebo VII (1996), the Supreme Court affirmed that Ijaw communities hold their lands under their own customary system.
That is binding.
That is superior.
That is final.
It overrides every selective colonial citation being recycled.
PRIVY COUNCIL AUTHORITY DESTROYS OVERLORDSHIP CLAIMS
The Privy Council in Ometan v. Dore Numa (1926) rejected claims of imposed overlordship over neighboring lands.
This is decisive.
Without a legally established landlord, there can be no tenants.
The entire theory of Itsekiri overlordship collapses here.
HISTORICAL RECORDS ARE CLEAR AND UNDENIABLE
History is not negotiable.
As far back as 1485, Duarte Pacheco Pereira documented the Ijos in Escravos and Forcados, long before the emergence of Itsekiri monarchy.
British colonial records consistently described Warri as inhabited by Ijaw, Urhobo and Itsekiri, distinct, co-existing peoples.
Not tenants.
Not subjects.
Not subordinates.
A people cannot become tenants to late comers and those whose political structure emerged after them.
THE COLLAPSE OF THE “OVERLORDSHIP” THEORY IN REALITY
If the claim of overlordship is true, let simple questions be answered:
Who appoints leadership in Gbaramatu?
Who governs Ogbe-Ijoh?
Who administers Ijaw territories?
Certainly not the Olu of Itshekiri.
Authority that is not exercised, not recognized and not accepted does not exist in law.
WE STAND WITH HON. EMOMOTIMI DENNIS GUWOR
We state clearly that we stand with the position of Rt. Hon. Emomotimi Dennis Guwor in asserting the historical and political presence of the Ijaw people.
The Ijaw nation is not a footnote in Warri, it is a foundational presence with multiple recognized local government areas across the region.
This reality cannot be erased by selective legal arguments or distorted narratives.
QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND HONEST ANSWERS
If the claims being made are indeed true, then let simple, honest questions be answered:
Where is the single local government in Warri that exclusively belongs to the Itsekiri?
If Warri South, Warri South West and Warri North are claimed entirely, why is there no undisputed administrative structure reflecting that exclusive ownership?
How does a people claim total ownership yet operate within a shared political and demographic reality?
Why must selective court cases be repeatedly stretched to defend a claim that should ordinarily stand on clear historical and administrative facts?
These are not hostile questions.
They are necessary questions.
THE PATTERN OF DELIBERATE DISTORTION
What is evident is a consistent pattern:
Selective citation
Removal of context
Exaggeration into universal claims
Suppression of contrary authorities
Ignoring historical records
This is not legal scholarship, this is narrative construction.
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Let the truth be stated clearly:
There is no Supreme Court judgment declaring Ijaws as tenants.
There is no legal authority granting Itsekiri universal ownership of Warri lands.
There is no historical basis for Ijaw subordination.
What exists instead is:
A long-established Ijaw presence,
Recognized in history,
Affirmed in law,
Sustained in reality.
CONCLUSION: TRUTH DOES NOT BEND
The attempt to weaponize law and history will continue to fail.
Law is not built on repetition.
History is not rewritten by assertion.
Truth remains constant.
Warri is not owned by one people.
It has never been.
It will never be.
And no amount of distortion, legal or rhetorical can change that reality.
Signed,
Chief Tiemopere Joshua ~ President
Chief Ebikeke T. Goodstime ~ Secretary
Concerned Stakeholders of Warri Federal Constituency for Truth and Justice
Cc:
The Delta State Governor