A prominent Itsekiri legal practitioner, Robinson Ariyo, has raised concerns over the ongoing controversy surrounding electoral ward delineation and a Supreme Court judgment affecting communities in Warri Federal Constituency, alleging procedural irregularities, misrepresentation of parties, and constitutional breaches in the handling of the matter by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and litigants.
Speaking in an interview on ARISE News on Thursday, Ariyo argued that the dispute—rooted in long-standing tensions over representation and administrative boundaries in parts of Delta State—is being mishandled and mischaracterised in public discourse.
He also insisted that the proper legal and constitutional procedures, including provisions on minority protection and electoral boundary implementation, have not been followed.
Ariyo questioned the legitimacy of the Supreme Court case at the centre of the dispute, arguing that not all affected groups were properly represented.
He said: “To put my response in perspective, I would like to let the viewers know that Delta State is made up of 25 local government council areas, and there are five major ethnic groups in Delta State. Now, the Delta Igbos control nine. The Urhobos next in turn control eight. The Ijaws control three. And the Itsekiris control two. The only three that the Itsekiris control are Warri South, Warri South-West, and Warri North.”
He maintained that Warri has historically been the only established homeland of the Itsekiri people:
“The correct picture is that, while the Urhobos keep their eight local government council areas peacefully in their kitty, and the Ijaws put their three peacefully in their kitty, the only place that the Itsekiris can call home, and which they have called home for over 500 years, even before Nigeria was born… the current Olu of Warri is the 21st Olu of Warri. The indication of that is that there have been 24 Olus, and none of these tribes can boast of three kings, or even two kings.”
He argued that this historical continuity demonstrates long-standing indigenous authority:
“What that tells you is that the Itsekiri people have established dominion over that area for a very long time.”
Ariyo situated the dispute within Nigeria’s broader constitutional framework on minority rights and federal character principles.
“Because one of the fears that minorities had, pre-independence, was the fear of marginalisation and domination. And that was why the British government established the Wilkins Commission to address the fears of the minorities. And that led to… the founding fathers of Nigeria put a provision in the constitution, Section 14, to protect the minorities.”
“And it says in subsections 2, 3, and 4 that benefits and entitlements should be so distributed that one ethnic nationality does not predominate.”
He added that public protests over the issue should not be dismissed:
“Protests is a civilised way of venting anger. In a constitutional democracy, there is what you call civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is the way that legitimate citizens express their resentment and opposition to government policies and programmes.”
Ariyo alleged that the Supreme Court judgment being referenced in the dispute was based on a case filed without the knowledge or participation of all affected parties.
“You talked about Supreme Court judgment. I don’t want to talk about how the Supreme Court judgment was obtained. But take a look at that Supreme Court judgment, you will see that that Supreme Court judgment was only a section of people in Warri that went to court quietly with INEC.”
“That judgment, that case was instituted for and on behalf of the Ijaws of Warri Federal Constituency. It was brought in representative capacity.”
He further claimed that other communities were excluded:
“The Shekeris will come, the Urhobos will come. They just did that case without the knowledge. At the appropriate time, we will go after the legal practitioners that were involved because it amounts to a breach of professional ethics for you to approach a court without disclosing to the court necessary parties in the action.”
Ariyo also argued that multiple conflicting judgments exist on the same subject matter:
“This is a case that left from the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court. And you want to adjudicate over a dispute that concerns three ethnicities. And the only person that got there was only one of them.”
“And so the judgment creditor of that judgment is the people of Ijaw of Warri Federal Constituency. One of the pillars of justice is the audi alteram partem—meaning you must listen to both sides.”
“The funny thing is that at the time they were doing that case, they instituted the case in 2011, the Shekeris had a judgment in their favour in respect of the same subject matter.”
“The judgment that the Shekeris obtained in 2003 was still in existence and INEC was participating in the enforcement proceedings, at the same time participating in the one that led to the Supreme Court judgment.”
“The judgment that the Shekeris obtained in 2003 and the judgment of the Supreme Court, they are at par.”
Addressing when electoral boundary changes take effect, Ariyo cited constitutional provisions governing constituency alterations.
“Let me show you something in this constitution that will surprise you. That nothing can even be done until after the election.”
“Where boundaries of any state constituency established under Section 112 of this constitution are altered in accordance with the provisions of Section 114… that alteration shall come into effect after it has been approved by the National Assembly and after the current life of the House of Assembly.”
He argued that implementation must follow due process:
“The law is that after INEC has finished its work, INEC will take its work to the National Assembly. And the lifespan of the existing assembly will come to an end before the work they have done will take effect.”
“So what is the remedy? Follow procedure, follow the rule of law.”
“The Supreme Court didn’t say you should violate the constitution.”
Ariyo also referenced technical reports and cartographic data he said were used in analysing the disputed boundaries.
“This document is an X-ray of the report they did. We put some young men together, led by one Mrs. Ete Igbomene. They put each of the coordinates.”
“We are in a scientific world. The report had coordinates of each of the units.”
“They put the coordinates in your phone… it took them to Ondo State, it took them to Edo State.”
When asked about verification standards, he maintained:
“We have a surveyor that has already done his work completely. We have a cartographer, a professor of cartography.”
“It has been independently verified… that’s why I say it has been peer-reviewed.”
Responding to questions on traditional leadership structures, Ariyo defended the historical depth of the Warri monarchy.
“That kingdom is over 500 years old. The current Olu of Warri is the 21st Olu of Warri.”
“Before you can say there is a competition with that history, you should be able to trace back a similar span of time.”
“None of the other tribes can tell you that they have up to five kings in Warri.”
He also referenced historical figures linked to early contact with Europeans:
“You have Don Domingos… I think went to Coimbra in Portugal.”
He concluded that competing claims are historically recent:
“This current consciousness is a consciousness that just arose from them recently.”
Using a biblical analogy to frame the dispute, Ariyo said:“It was like a child was brought before a judgment. The person who didn’t own it said you should split the child. But the person who owned it said no.”
Boluwatife Enome
Follow us on:
