By Obinna Uballa
A fresh war of words between two prominent Delta State figures has reopened an old, sensitive question that many in Sapele may have believed had long been settled by history, law and quiet coexistence – who truly owns Sapele?
On one side is Chief Emmanuel Oritsejolomi Uduaghan, the Alema of Warri Kingdom, who insists that Sapele is historically Itsekiri land, recently warned the Orodje of Okpe, Major General Mujakperuo Agho (Rtd), against acting beyond what he describes as legally defined territorial limits.
On the other is Senator Ede Dafinone, Chairman of the Sapele Okpe Community Land Trust Association, who argues that both history and binding court judgments leave no room for debate about the fact that Sapele is indigenous Okpe land and the matter is res judicata.
What began as a cautionary statement over a proposed foundation-laying ceremony for a sub-palace of the Orodje of Okpe in Sapele has quickly escalated into a broader contest over history, legal interpretation, traditional authority and ethnic sensitivity in one of Delta State’s most cosmopolitan towns.
As The New Diplomat earlier reported, the spark was a caveat emptor issued by Uduaghan ahead of the January 24, 2026 ceremony. He warned that the Orodje must confine his activities strictly within what he described as 510 acres of land granted to the Okpe people under the West African Court of Appeal judgment in Chief Ayomanor v. Ginuwa.
“I sincerely hope that the proposed foundation-laying ceremony of the sub-palace by the Orodje of Okpe is within the said 510 acres granted to the Okpes,” Uduaghan said, warning that any action outside that area could trigger a communal crisis that would be resisted “by every legal means possible.”
Uduaghan argues that historical and colonial records do not recognise Sapele as an Okpe town. Citing a 1930 intelligence report compiled by a colonial officer, L.E.A. Fellows, he noted that notable Okpe villages listed included Amukpe, Elume, Orerokpe and Gbukurusu, but not Sapele.
He further describes himself as administrator of several Itsekiri communities within Sapele – including Ugbekoko, Utonyatsere, Ajimele, Aji Dore and Irakpa – which he says fall under the overlordship of the Olu of Warri, Ogiame Atuwatse III.
“Sapele is not the exclusive town of the Okpe people. Sapele, from time immemorial, belongs to the Itsekiri people,” he stated, insisting that the Ayomanor v. Ginuwa judgment did not confer ownership of Sapele on the Okpe but merely granted them a defined parcel of land.
That interpretation drew a swift and forceful rebuttal from Dafinone.
In a detailed response, Dafinone accused Uduaghan of resurrecting “false, provocative and legally settled claims” that pose a serious threat to peace and public order in Sapele. He insisted that title to all lands in Sapele is vested in the Sapele Okpe Community Land Trust Association and that Sapele is, and has always been, an indigenous Okpe town, regardless of its multi-ethnic population.
According to Dafinone, the matter was conclusively settled decades ago by courts of competent jurisdiction, particularly in the landmark case of Chief Ayomano & Anor v. Ginuwa II (9 WACA 85). In that case, he said, the Olu of Warri, representing the Itsekiri people of Sapele, challenged Okpe ownership and lost.
Quoting from the judgment, Dafinone recalled the court’s finding that the Itsekiri claim was “impudent” and that “for all practical purposes, the whole area now claimed was formerly farmed by Sobos” – the colonial name for the Okpe people.
He noted that the court further held that after the Nana War of 1894, many Itsekiris fled to Sapele and obtained permission from the Okpe to settle, offering customary “dashes” in return. The Okpe, the court found, had exercised exclusive rights of ownership up to the time the colonial government obtained a lease in 1908.
To Dafinone, the fact that this judgment was never appealed to the Privy Council makes it binding and creates what lawyers describe as issue estoppel against any renewed Itsekiri claim over Sapele land.
He also cited subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including Muvunum v. Achydoma and Madam Ukoli Oleji v. Washman Ogodo, which he said consistently affirmed that Itsekiri settlements in Sapele were customary tenancies granted by Okpe families.
Beyond the legal arguments, Dafinone pointed to statutory backing. He referenced the Delta State Traditional Rulers, Council and Chiefs Law, which recognises only the Orodje of Okpe as the traditional ruler of Sapele Local Government Area. According to him, the Olu of Warri has never sought or obtained statutory recognition in Sapele because there is no indigenous Itsekiri community there.
He also dismissed Uduaghan’s authority to question the Orodje, noting that the Alema title is not indigenous to Sapele and that the Okpe monarch has maintained a sub-palace in the town for decades without objection, even when prominent Itsekiri residents lived there.
“The peaceful disposition of the Okpe people is not a sign of weakness. Civility must never be mistaken for submission,” Dafinone warned, urging security agencies to treat references to communal crisis as a possible instigation of inter-ethnic tension.
Observers say the dispute touches on identity, memory and authority in a town that has grown into a melting pot of ethnicities, commerce and migration over more than a century.
Sapele today is home to Okpe, Itsekiri, Urhobo, Ijaw and people from across Nigeria. Its history is intertwined with colonial trade, timber, rubber, and industry. That cosmopolitan character, they note , has often blurred older territorial claims, allowing communities to coexist without regularly revisiting historical grievances.
But as traditional institutions seek to assert relevance and communities become more conscious of heritage and land rights, old judgments and archival records are being dusted off and reinterpreted in the court of public opinion.
