https://www.facebook.com/320814258105818/

TGM Amiwero Esq., Asaba (2026)

19/06/2026

THE WARRI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY RE-DELINEATION CONTROVERSY

Series One

UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF WARRI SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

From the Ancient Warri Kingdom to the Modern Local Government Structure

By

T.G.M. Amiwero Esq., AICMC

INTRODUCTION

The ongoing controversy surrounding the Supreme Court-ordered re-delineation of the Warri Federal Constituency has once again brought to the fore one of Nigeria's longest-running historical, legal and political questions: What exactly is Warri, and who are its indigenous proprietors?

Unfortunately, contemporary political debates have often blurred the distinction between land ownership, traditional sovereignty, political representation, electoral delineation, population distribution, and administrative convenience.

These concepts are fundamentally different.

This series seeks to examine, through historical records, legal authorities and constitutional principles, the evolution of what is today known as Warri South Local Government Area.

This first part focuses exclusively on the historical evolution of the territory.

Subsequent parts shall examine the legal, constitutional and political implications of that history on the current ward delineation exercise.

THE WARRI KINGDOM BEFORE COLONIAL RULE

Long before the creation of Local Government Areas, Provinces, Regions or even Nigeria itself, there existed the Kingdom of Warri (Iwere Kingdom).

Historical scholarship places the emergence of the Kingdom several centuries before British colonial administration. The Kingdom developed into one of the earliest centralized monarchies in the Niger Delta, with a hereditary monarchy headed by the Olu of Warri. European records from Portuguese, Dutch, French and British traders consistently referred to the Kingdom as Warri or variants of "Iwere," reflecting the European adaptation of the indigenous name.

Unlike many neighbouring societies that organized land through extended family ownership, the Itsekiri traditional system evolved around communal ownership vested in the Crown. Under this customary tenure, the Olu of Warri held the radical or allodial title to land on behalf of the Kingdom, while individuals and communities enjoyed rights of occupation, use and inheritance according to customary law. This model has often been compared by scholars to the Crown land concept historically associated with the English legal tradition, though it remains rooted in Itsekiri customary law.

THE ORIGIN OF THE NAME "WARRI"

One historical fact enjoys broad scholarly acceptance.

The name "Warri" did not originate as the name of the present municipality.

Rather, it derived from "Iwere," the indigenous name associated with the Kingdom and its ancient capital at Ode-Itsekiri (Big Warri).

Early European navigators rendered "Iwere" variously as:

Warre

Warree

Oere

Owhere

Awerri

Over time, British colonial administration standardized the spelling as Warri.

Accordingly, "Warri" originally denoted the Kingdom itself before later becoming attached to colonial administrative units, townships and, eventually, local government areas.

ODE-ITSEKIRI: THE ORIGINAL CAPITAL

Before the establishment of the present urban centre, the political capital of the Kingdom was Ode-Itsekiri, situated along the Benin River.

Historical records describe Ode-Itsekiri as the seat of the Olu and the centre of political authority, diplomacy and commerce. European merchants negotiated with the Olu there centuries before the British established administrative offices in the mainland settlement that later became modern Warri.

This distinction is important because many modern assumptions incorrectly equate today's Warri municipality with the historical origins of the Kingdom.

THE EMERGENCE OF MODERN WARRI TOWNSHIP

The development of the present Warri township accelerated during British colonial expansion in the late nineteenth century.

As British commercial interests shifted inland, administrative headquarters, ports, courts and trading facilities gradually moved closer to the mainland.

Communities from different ethnic backgrounds increasingly settled within the expanding commercial centre.

Historical literature records that some Urhobo communities, particularly Agbarha, migrated southwards into the Warri area after negotiations permitting settlement.

Colonial administration transformed Warri into a cosmopolitan commercial centre, attracting people from across the Niger Delta.

FROM WARRI KINGDOM TO WARRI PROVINCE

British administration subsequently reorganised indigenous territories into administrative provinces.

One of these became Warri Province.

The Province covered a geographical area far larger than the present Warri South Local Government Area and included territories now falling within several modern local government areas.

Warri Province served as one of the principal administrative divisions in colonial Southern Nigeria and later the Western Region before subsequent state creation exercises reconfigured administrative boundaries.

It is important to appreciate that the creation of Warri Province was an administrative exercise. It did not, by itself, determine questions of customary land tenure or extinguish pre-existing proprietary interests under customary law.

THE CREATION OF WARRI SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

Following successive constitutional and administrative reforms, Warri Province gave way to newer divisions, culminating in the present local government structure.

Today's Warri South Local Government Area is therefore a modern administrative creation within the territory historically associated with the Warri Kingdom.

As with many local governments in Nigeria, its boundaries were created for governance, representation and public administration.

A Local Government Area is not, in itself, a judicial determination of indigenous ownership or customary title. Administrative boundaries and customary proprietary rights are separate legal concepts.

WHY THIS HISTORY MATTERS TODAY

The present controversy over ward delineation demonstrates why historical context remains significant.

Electoral wards are designed to facilitate political representation and electoral administration. They do not, in themselves, determine title to land or alter customary proprietary interests.

Likewise, historical assertions of ownership require careful examination alongside judicial decisions, statutory provisions and constitutional principles rather than political rhetoric alone.

The challenge before policymakers is therefore to distinguish clearly between:

traditional history;

customary land tenure;

judicial determinations;

constitutional governance; and

electoral administration.

Failure to maintain those distinctions risks conflating separate legal concepts and complicating an already sensitive public debate.

CONCLUSION

The history of Warri South Local Government Area did not begin with the creation of the Local Government.

Its historical roots extend back through Warri Province to the ancient Kingdom of Warri, whose institutions predated colonial administration by several centuries.

Understanding that historical evolution provides an essential foundation for evaluating contemporary disputes concerning electoral delineation, political representation and customary rights.

However, history alone does not resolve every present-day legal controversy. It must be read together with judicial decisions, constitutional provisions and statutory frameworks.

Accordingly, the next part of this series will examine the legal evolution of land ownership in Warri South, focusing on the landmark judicial authorities that have shaped debates on customary title, possessory rights and traditional overlordship within the Warri Kingdom.

TGM Amiwero Esq., AICMC ©2026

15/06/2026

THE WARRI DELINEATION CONTROVERSY: WHY THE ITSEKIRI NATION REMAINS AGGRIEVED

A Legal and Political Exposé

By T.G.M. Amiwero Esq., AICMC

Introduction

The recent intervention of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the Warri delineation controversy was undoubtedly intended to restore calm and promote peaceful coexistence among the various ethnic nationalities within the Warri Federal Constituency.

However, despite the reported understandings reached during stakeholder engagements, many Itsekiris remain dissatisfied.

The reason is simple.

The controversy is not merely about wards, constituencies or electoral representation.

Rather, it concerns the preservation of historical rights, constitutional protections, territorial integrity, traditional authority and the political future of the Itsekiri Nation within its ancestral homeland.

For many Itsekiris, the present controversy raises a fundamental question:

Can political arrangements and demographic shifts override centuries of established ownership, judicial recognition and traditional authority?

The answer, in law and in principle, must be no.

The Itsekiri Position

The Itsekiri position has remained consistent over the decades.

The Itsekiri people are the aboriginal owners of the Warri Kingdom and the lands that today comprise the Warri Federal Constituency.

The Olu of Warri remains the traditional overlord of the Warri Kingdom.

The rights of other groups within portions of Warri have historically been recognised through occupation, settlement and customary arrangements, but such rights do not extinguish the superior title and traditional authority vested in the Warri Kingdom.

This position is not based merely on sentiment or oral tradition.

It is supported, according to the Itsekiri position, by history, colonial records and judicial authorities spanning nearly a century.

Judicial Recognition Of Itsekiri Ownership And Overlordship

Several landmark judicial decisions are frequently relied upon as affirming the legal and customary position of the Itsekiri Nation.

Ogegede v. Dore Numa (1925)

This colonial-era decision is regarded by many Itsekiri historians and legal scholars as one of the earliest judicial affirmations of the authority exercised by the Olu of Warri over Warri lands.

Ometan v. Dore Numa (1926)

The court recognised the customary relationship existing between the Olu of Warri and certain non-Itsekiri settlers within parts of Warri.

Agbassa Appeal (1931)

The Full Court reaffirmed principles relating to ownership and authority within the Warri Kingdom.

Idundun v. Okumagba (1976)

One of Nigeria's most celebrated land law decisions.

Apart from establishing the recognised methods of proving title to land, the case is widely cited as affirming traditional evidence supporting Itsekiri ownership claims and the superior customary title associated with the Warri Kingdom.

Taken together, these authorities are relied upon by the Itsekiri Nation as confirmation that the radical title to Warri lands remains vested in the Itsekiri people through the institution of the Olu of Warri.

In customary law, possessory rights do not extinguish superior title.

Occupation does not automatically become ownership.

Customary tenancy does not become overlordship merely through the passage of time.

The Central Concern Of The Itsekiri Nation

The concern of many Itsekiris is not merely that additional wards may be created.

The deeper concern is that political arrangements are increasingly being used to create realities capable of undermining established historical and legal rights.

The fear is that political representation may eventually be invoked as evidence of territorial entitlement.

This is where the Itsekiri Nation draws a clear line.

Political representation and land ownership are not the same thing.

A ward is not a title deed.

A constituency is not ownership.

Electoral delineation cannot lawfully become a vehicle for transferring proprietary rights.

No amount of political representation can extinguish lawful ownership.

No number of wards can automatically transfer title.

No electoral exercise can erase history.

Why Many Itsekiris Reject The Present Arrangement

According to reports emerging from stakeholder engagements, proposals have been made that would significantly alter the ward structure within parts of Warri North and Warri South-West.

Many Itsekiris are asking legitimate questions.

What Data Was Used?

Were the proposed wards created using:

- Existing voter registers?
- Recent voter registration figures?
- Population estimates?
- Geospatial mapping?
- Community surveys?

The public deserves answers.

What Land Areas Were Used?

If certain areas historically operated under significantly fewer wards, what geographical basis now supports the proposed increase?

Were existing community boundaries respected?

Were historical settlements considered?

Were territorial realities examined?

How Was Equality Measured?

What criteria were adopted?

What formula was applied?

What methodology was used?

Without transparency, confidence in the process becomes difficult to sustain.

A Pattern Of Political Marginalisation?

Many Itsekiris believe that over the years, political arrangements have increasingly operated to diminish the political influence of the Itsekiri Nation within territories regarded as its ancestral homeland.

Whether in electoral arrangements, political negotiations or administrative decisions, there is a perception that the Itsekiri Nation is repeatedly called upon to make concessions in the interest of peace.

The concern is that peace has often come at the cost of political influence.

The concern is that compromise has become a one-directional expectation.

The concern is that historical rights are increasingly subordinated to political expediency.

These concerns should not be dismissed.

They deserve serious engagement.

The Responsibility Of Government

Government has a constitutional duty to protect all citizens and all communities.

This duty extends beyond conflict management.

It includes ensuring that public institutions operate transparently and fairly.

It includes respecting judicial decisions.

It includes protecting minority rights.

It includes ensuring that historical grievances are addressed through lawful means.

The answer cannot always be another political settlement.

Where legal rights exist, they deserve protection.

Where judicial authorities exist, they deserve respect.

Where historical claims exist, they deserve consideration.

What Government Must Do

To restore confidence, government should insist upon:

Full Transparency

INEC should publish:

- Delineation reports.
- Technical studies.
- Electoral maps.
- Population data.
- GIS records.
- Implementation frameworks.

Independent Review

Independent experts should be allowed to review the basis of any proposed arrangement.

Respect For Historical Realities

Administrative convenience must not become a substitute for justice.

Political solutions must not disregard historical realities.

Constitutional Protection

The Federal Government must ensure that no community feels compelled to surrender what it regards as its lawful rights merely to achieve temporary peace.

The Future Of The Itsekiri Nation

The present controversy has reinforced an important lesson.

The future of the Itsekiri Nation cannot depend solely upon political arrangements.

It must rest upon:

- Strong institutions.
- Historical preservation.
- Economic development.
- Educational advancement.
- Legal vigilance.
- Strategic political engagement.

Above all, it must rest upon unity.

The Itsekiri Nation must continue to preserve its history, defend its rights through lawful means and ensure that future generations understand the foundations upon which the Warri Kingdom was built.

Conclusion

The Warri delineation controversy is about far more than electoral wards.

It is about history.

It is about identity.

It is about constitutional governance.

It is about the relationship between political representation and proprietary rights.

Most importantly, it is about whether historical and judicially recognised rights can be diluted through political arrangements.

The Itsekiri position remains clear.

Political representation cannot extinguish ownership.

Electoral delineation cannot transfer title.

Customary tenancy cannot become overlordship through demographics alone.

The path to lasting peace lies not in political expediency but in transparency, justice, constitutionalism and respect for history.

Until these principles are fully respected, many Itsekiris will continue to believe that the struggle for the preservation of their heritage and homeland is far from over.

T.G.M. Amiwero Esq., AICMC

Public Affairs Analyst, Legal Practitioner and Advocate for Constitutional Governance

11/06/2026

INEC'S RESTORATION OF WARRI NORTH II AND WARRI SOUTH-WEST II: A LEGAL AND FACTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONTRADICTIONS WITH THE WARRI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY REDELINEATION EXERCISE

By T.G.M. Amiwero Esq., AICMC

Introduction

On 10 June 2026, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) issued a Press Release announcing the restoration of several allegedly suppressed State Constituencies across four states of the Federation, including Warri North II and Warri South-West II State Constituencies in Delta State.

The Commission further directed political parties to conduct primaries between 16th and 25th June 2026 in the restored constituencies ahead of the 2027 General Election.

At first glance, the announcement may appear routine and administrative. However, a closer examination reveals a fundamental contradiction between INEC's recent Ward Redelineation Exercise in Warri Federal Constituency and its sudden restoration of Warri North II and Warri South-West II State Constituencies.

This contradiction raises serious legal, constitutional, demographic, and administrative questions which the Itsekiri Nation and indeed the Nigerian public must carefully interrogate.

Understanding the Central Contradiction

The first question every stakeholder should ask is simple:

If Warri North II and Warri South-West II State Constituencies already existed as "suppressed constituencies," why were they not reflected in the recently concluded Supreme Court-ordered delineation exercise?

The Supreme Court ordered INEC to conduct a ward and polling unit delineation exercise within the Warri Federal Constituency.

The exercise was presented by INEC as a comprehensive and definitive solution to representation issues within:

Warri North Local Government Area;
Warri South Local Government Area; and
Warri South-West Local Government Area.

Yet, only weeks after releasing the delineation report, INEC suddenly announced the restoration of Warri North II and Warri South-West II State Constituencies.

This development creates a major credibility challenge.

Either:
The constituencies already existed and should have been fully reflected in the delineation exercise; or

They did not exist in operational form and are now being introduced through a process separate from the Supreme Court judgment.

INEC cannot logically maintain both positions simultaneously.

The Concept of Suppressed Constituencies

Historically, a suppressed constituency refers to a constituency validly created by law but subsequently denied practical implementation.

In such cases, restoration merely returns an already existing constituency into operation.

The critical question therefore is:

Where exactly were the supposedly suppressed Warri North II and Warri South-West II Constituencies before now?

What elections were conducted in them?

What maps existed?

What legal instruments established them?

What electoral structures existed for them?

These questions deserve clear answers.

The Existing Political Structure in Warri Federal Constituency

The Warri Federal Constituency presently consists of:
Warri North LGA;
Warri South LGA; and
Warri South-West LGA.

Historically and constitutionally, these local government areas already possess representation at both State Assembly and Federal levels.

The controversy has never been the absence of constituencies.

Rather, the controversy has always concerned:

Ward allocation;

Polling unit distribution;

Electoral representation;

Population claims; and

Territorial identification.

Consequently, the recent delineation exercise was presented as an exercise aimed at correcting electoral imbalances within existing constitutional structures.

The restoration announcement now appears to move the discussion beyond delineation into constituency re-engineering.

The Fundamental Legal Question

The Supreme Court ordered delineation.

The Supreme Court did not create new local governments.

The Supreme Court did not alter state boundaries.

The Supreme Court did not transfer communities between states.

The Supreme Court did not redefine traditional ownership of land.

The Supreme Court ordered electoral delineation.

Therefore, any exercise which effectively creates entirely new political realities beyond the scope of the judgment deserves careful scrutiny.

Why This Raises Concern for the Itsekiri Nation

The concern of many Itsekiri stakeholders is straightforward.

The Itsekiri people maintain that they are the aboriginal inhabitants and traditional owners of the Warri Kingdom and its territories.

Numerous historical records, colonial documents, traditional treaties, and judicial pronouncements have been relied upon by Itsekiri scholars and leaders to support this position.

From this perspective, any electoral exercise that substantially alters the political character of the area is viewed not merely as an electoral adjustment but as an attempt to redefine historical realities through administrative means.

The fear is that repeated electoral restructuring may eventually be used to create a narrative that differs from the historical and judicial record.

The Strange Timing of the Restoration

Another issue demanding explanation is timing.

INEC completed the delineation exercise.

INEC released the delineation report.
INEC defended the delineation report.
Then suddenly, INEC announced the restoration of Warri North II and Warri South-West II.

This sequence naturally invites questions.

Why were these restored constituencies not clearly integrated into the public discourse from the beginning?

Why did the restoration emerge only after the delineation controversy had intensified?

Why were stakeholders not given sufficient opportunity to interrogate the implications?

Transparency requires answers.

The Danger of Administrative Expansion Through Electoral Processes

Electoral administration must never become a substitute for constitutional amendment.

Electoral administration must never become a substitute for boundary adjustment.

Electoral administration must never become a substitute for demographic engineering.

Where electoral exercises begin to produce outcomes that substantially alter long-established territorial and political realities, democratic legitimacy becomes vulnerable.

This is precisely why electoral bodies must operate strictly within constitutional limits.

What Should the Itsekiri Nation Do?

The response must remain lawful, constitutional, peaceful, and strategic.

1. Immediate Legal Review

A team of constitutional lawyers, historians, surveyors, and electoral experts should urgently review:

The Supreme Court judgment;
The Court of Appeal decisions;
The delineation report;
The restoration documents; and
All constituency maps relied upon by INEC.

2. Demand Full Disclosure
INEC should be formally requested to publish:

The legal basis of the restoration;
Historical maps relied upon;
Demographic data utilized;
Technical reports supporting the exercise; and
The exact court judgments referenced.

3. Seek Judicial Clarification
Where ambiguities exist between the Supreme Court judgment and the restoration exercise, stakeholders should seek judicial interpretation.

4. Mobilise Scholarly Documentation
The Itsekiri Nation should commission comprehensive documentation covering:

Historical boundaries;
Traditional ownership records;
Colonial records;
Judicial decisions; and
Demographic evidence.

5. Engage National Institutions
Relevant petitions should be directed to:

The National Assembly;
The National Boundary Commission;
The Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation; and
Other constitutionally relevant institutions.

6. Maintain Peaceful Civic Engagement
Public enlightenment, stakeholder engagement, town hall meetings, and lawful advocacy should remain the preferred instruments of engagement.

7. Apply to the relevant Court immediately seeking a Restraining Order on INEC before it finalizes it's obscure plans.

Conclusion

The 10 June 2026 INEC announcement has introduced a new layer of complexity into an already contentious Warri Federal Constituency dispute.

The critical issue is no longer merely ward delineation.

The issue now concerns whether the restoration of Warri North II and Warri South-West II is consistent with the legal framework upon which the delineation exercise was conducted.

Until INEC provides comprehensive clarification, legitimate questions will continue to arise regarding transparency, consistency, and constitutional compliance.

For the Itsekiri Nation, the challenge is clear: respond not with emotion, but with facts; not with confrontation, but with law; not with speculation, but with evidence.

History, legality, and constitutionalism must remain the guiding principles in the pursuit of justice.

T.G.M. Amiwero Esq., AICMC Legal Practitioner, Public Affairs Analyst and Advocate

07/06/2026

WARRI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY REDELINEATION: AN EDUCATIONAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONTROVERSY

By T.G.M. Amiwero Esq., AICMC

Introduction

The ongoing controversy surrounding the redelineation exercise undertaken by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the Warri Federal Constituency has generated intense public debate, legal disputes, and concerns among stakeholders. Unfortunately, much of the public discussion has been clouded by political rhetoric, ethnic sentiments, and misinformation.

This article seeks to educate the public on the meaning of redelineation, the limits of INEC's constitutional powers, the historical composition of the Warri Federal Constituency, and the concerns raised by many Itsekiri stakeholders regarding the current exercise.

The objective is not merely to criticize institutions but to enable Nigerians to understand the legal and constitutional issues involved and appreciate why many Itsekiri people view the current exercise as a serious threat to their historical, territorial, and political rights.

Understanding Redelineation

A proper understanding of the controversy requires a clear definition of key terms.

What is Redelineation?

Redelineation is the process of reviewing and adjusting electoral units, wards, polling units, or constituency arrangements in order to ensure fair and effective representation of the people.

The purpose of re-delineation is generally to reflect population realities and ensure that electoral representation remains equitable within an already defined geographical territory

In clear terms, re-delineation does not in any sense involve changing established territorial boundaries or transferring land from one ethnic or political group to another-which is the perfect example of what INEC has done in the instant case.

What is Boundary Adjustment?

Boundary adjustment is entirely different.

Boundary adjustment involves altering the recognized geographical limits of a community, ward, local government area, state, or constituency.

While re-delineation deals with electoral representation, that is, the political representation of the people within an already defined geographical territory or within existing defined boundaries, boundary adjustment deals with the shift of the physical boundaries themselves.

This distinction is crucial because INEC's constitutional role relates primarily to electoral administration and representation, not the creation, shift or alteration of historically defined territorial boundaries.

Consequently, any exercise that effectively transfers communities from one traditional or territorial jurisdiction to another raises serious legal questions that deserve public scrutiny. This is the grouse of the Itsekiri people.

The Historical Position of Warri Federal Constituency

Warri Federal Constituency comprises:

1. Warri South Local Government Area;
2. Warri North Local Government Area; and
3. Warri South-West Local Government Area.

Historically, the Itsekiri people have maintained that they are the aboriginal inhabitants and indigenous owners of the Warri Kingdom, comprising the three Warri LGAs and some autonomous surrounding territories within other LGAs in Delta State.

This position is supported by numerous historical records, colonial documents, treaties, and judicial decisions spanning several decades.

The Itsekiri position further maintains that both the Ijaw communities of Gbaramatu, Ogbe-Ijoh, Egbema and Issaba and the Urhobo communities of Okere Urhobo and Agbarha settled within Warri Federal Constituency are historically recognized as belonging to the Warri Kingdom.

Several judicial decisions over the years have described such occupations as customary tenancy relationships, with the implication that occupancy rights do not translate into ownership of the underlying traditional homeland. Would it be right therefore for tenants within a predefined political confine to politically override his landlord with the aid of government institution?

Whether one agrees with this position or not, it remains a significant aspect of the legal, historical, and factual foundation upon which many Itsekiri objections are based.

Historical Ward Structure

For many years vide the political magnanimity of the Itsekiri people, the political structure of the constituency reflected what stakeholders regarded as the demographic and historical realities of the area.

In Warri North Local Government Area:

- Six wards were associated with Itsekiri communities.
- Four wards were associated with Ijaw communities.

In Warri South-West Local Government Area:

- Six wards were associated with Itsekiri communities.
- Four wards were associated with Ijaw communities.

In Warri South Local Government Area:

- Eight wards were associated with Itsekiri communities.
- Two wards were associated with Urhobo communities.

This arrangement formed the basis of electoral representation for many years until INEC fraudulently allocated 6 wards to the micro-minority Urhobos in Warri South LGA.

The 2011 Court of Appeal Decision

One of the most important legal developments in this matter was the decision of the Court of Appeal in 2011.

According to Itsekiri stakeholders, the Court of Appeal directed a reversion to the earlier ward structure in Warri South Local Government Area consisting of:

- Eight wards for the Itsekiri; and
- Two wards for the micro-minority Urhobo.

The significance of this judgment lies in the principle that decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding unless set aside by a higher court. Prior to the Supreme Court Judgment being brandished about by the Ijaws fraudulently being implemented by INEC, this Court of Appeal judgment has not been overturned by a Superior Court of Records.

For this reason, many Itsekiri groups contend that any subsequent administrative action inconsistent with that judgment raises fundamental questions regarding compliance with the rule of law.

The Core Controversy

The principal complaint by many Itsekiri stakeholders is that the recent INEC exercise goes beyond lawful re-delineation.

Our argument is that what is being presented as re-delineation has, in practical terms, resulted in the physical expansion of communities and electoral units in a manner that allegedly alters long-established and defined territorial realities.

It is our strong argument that if electoral units are created or recognized in areas outside historically recognized boundaries, the exercise ceases to be a simple redelineation exercise and becomes a de facto boundary adjustment.

Nigerians must therefore come to terms that this distinction is at the heart of the current dispute.

Why We as Itsekiri Stakeholders Are Concerned

The concern expressed by many Itsekiri leaders is not merely about electoral numbers. The Itsekiri people are not against the Warri Federal Constituency Re-delineation exercise.

Rather, we argue that the exercise has broader and serious implications for:

- Historical identity;
- Traditional ownership;
- Political representation;
- Cultural preservation;
- Resource allocation; and
- Future territorial claims.

Unarguably, if electoral structures are built upon what we regard as historically inaccurate territorial assumptions, those assumptions may eventually become accepted as political realities. This will go a long way to affect the general Nigerian State. In 2026, defined geographical territories cannot be acquired via political conquest or gimmicks.

From our perspective, such a development would gradually erode the status of the Itsekiri as the aboriginal people of the area. This should be a cause of concern for other ethnic nationalities within the Nigerian State.

The Question of Customary Tenancy

A major issue often overlooked in public discussions is the distinction between occupancy and ownership.

Under customary law, a tenant may possess, use, and occupy land for generations.

However, customary tenancy does not automatically confer ownership of the land.

It is our argument that many undisputed judicial authorities have repeatedly recognized all the Ijaw and Urhobo settlements within Warri as customary tenants rather than owners of the underlying traditional territory. The facts and records are there within the public domain for those who care to carry out research.

Given the foregoing therefore, any electoral exercise that elevates customary tenancy into territorial ownership would represent a fundamental distortion of established legal principles. INEC must take this into cognizance.

This is one of the central arguments advanced against the current exercise.

The Constitutional Questions

From a constitutional standpoint, several constitutional questions arise from the controversy:

1. Can INEC redelineate electoral units without altering established territorial boundaries?

2. Can an administrative exercise override or undermine an existing Court of Appeal judgment?

3. What role should historical records and judicial findings play in electoral re-delineation?

4. Can electoral arrangements be used to redefine historical ownership claims?

These are questions that ultimately require careful legal determinations rather than political slogans being pushed by the Ijaws and Urhobos who have been magnanimously accommodated for decades within the Warri Kingdom.

Why the Matter Concerns All Nigerians

This issue extends beyond Warri.

It raises broader questions about:

- Constitutional governance;
- Respect for judicial decisions;
- Protection of indigenous rights;
- Electoral integrity; and
- The limits of administrative authority.

If public institutions are perceived as in the instant case, as acting beyond their lawful powers, confidence in democratic governance may be weakened.

Conversely, if legitimate demographic realities require electoral adjustments, such adjustments must be undertaken transparently, lawfully, and in accordance with existing realities and judicial decisions.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding the Warri Federal Constituency Re-delineation is not merely an ethnic dispute. It is fundamentally a constitutional, legal, and historical question.

The central concern of many Itsekiri stakeholders is that an exercise intended to adjust electoral representation has gone beyond lawful re-delineation and ventured into the realm of territorial reconfiguration.

If that concern is justified, the implications would extend far beyond elections and touch upon questions of historical ownership, indigenous rights, and the rule of law.

For this reason, all stakeholders, government institutions, courts, traditional authorities, and the Nigerian public must carefully examine the facts, the law, and the historical record.

Only through transparency, legality, and respect for judicial authority can a just and lasting resolution be achieved.

Again, can the physical boundaries of a historically defined territory be adjusted as part of a re-delineation exercise by INEC?

T.G.M. Amiwero Esq., AICMC
07/06/2026

Address

Asaba
234

Telephone

07031949961

Website

facebook.com

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 Practice

Send a message to TGM Amiwero Esq.:

TGM Amiwero Esq.