| Urhobo Historical Society |
On the Matter of
Clans and Kingdoms in Urhobo
History and
Culture
By Peter P. Ekeh
Chair,
Urhobo Historical Society
Presented
as a lecture
at an Assembly of Urhobo Community,
As a term for describing a
basic unit of Urhobo culture, the
word “clan” came into existence at the onset of British colonial rule
in
Urhoboland in the beginning decades of the 20th century.
From
prehistoric times, and even during that era of colonial rule, the
Urhobo people
employed their own native expressions, including ẹkpotọ (that is, ẹkpo
r’ otọ in full phrasing), to describe these units of Urhobo
culture.
Other words that were so used to describe Urhobo’s cultural units were ẹkuotọ and ubrotọ. However, that colonial
term of “clans” dominated Urhobo studies and everyday analysis of
Urhobo ways
of life until its authority was undermined in the late 1990s.
Its current rival term of
“kingdom”
was first applied to the special case of Okpe by Onigu Otite in his
1969 Ph.D.
thesis for
The
recent widespread upsurge in the
use of the word “kingdoms” in the cultural life of the Urhobo people
followed
from the publication of a book of a different genre. Titled Urhobo Kingdoms: Political
and Social
Systems
and published in 1997, its authors were notable: they were the Ovie[1]
of Ogor, His Royal
Highness O. I. Adjara
III,[2]
and his
co-author Andy Omokri. Although this book cannot be said to
have made
any academic impact beyond Urhoboland and its Diaspora, its import on
Urhobo
social life has been considerable. While it is hardly known outside the
leading
circle of Ivie[3]
and high
chieftains in Urhoboland, its influence in this dominant group of
aristocrats
appears to have been immediate and positive.
Today, the
term “clan” has largely been swept off Urhobo political vocabulary.
However, it
is uncertain whether “kingdoms” has effectively replaced the British
term
“clans” or indeed traditional indigenous Urhobo terms, such as ẹkpotọ, for which the
British had coined the word “clans” a century ago. Indeed, this note of
disquiet may well be phrased differently, as a query: Is it possible
that the
introduction of “kingdoms” has done more harm to Urhobo’s cultural
circumstances than any appearance of prestige that it has bestowed on
our royal
institutions? What one can say with some certainty is that there is
considerable confusion in the usages and meanings of “kingdoms” in
modern
Urhobo cultural life. Certainly, the term “kingdoms” has left out of
its
semantic sway whole areas of culture that are of traditional concern to
the
Urhobo people. Into this deepening confusion has now strolled the Delta
State
Government waiving what appears to be an all-embracing new claim that
it has an
inherent power to decree Urhobo “kingdoms” into existence by way of
government
gazettes. Without a doubt, a dark cloud of cultural crisis now hangs
over the
Urhobo horizon. In these circumstances, there is need to clarify the
historical
and cultural meanings of “clans” and “kingdoms.” To be silent and allow
this
confusion to be waged in ignorance serves no one well – not Urhobo
culture, not
the Delta State Government, and certainly not Urhobo chieftains.
Before I
proceed any further with this analysis, I want to make a point
abundantly clear.
This paper is not intended to defend the British colonial term “clans”
or to
attack its putative rival “kingdoms.” On the contrary, it is to invite
an
engaging conversation on a vital aspect of Urhobo history and culture
which is
currently under distress. Urhobo culture is ours and we must not allow
it to
flounder.
Pre-Historic
Origins of Urhobo Cultural Units
For
now, permit me to put aside the two controversial terms of “clans” and
“kingdoms.” In their place, I will use the politically neutral
expression of
“Urhobo Cultural Units” or more simply “Urhobo’s Subcultures.” These
are
sociological notions for which the word “clans” or “kingdoms” had been
suggested as a shorthand. Note that I have not employed another popular
expression, polities, in characterizing these subunits of
Urhobo
culture. That is because the word polities is limited by its
political
anthropological baggage to matters political whereas the units of
Urhobo
culture that are the subject of our discussion here have vast
historical
and cultural nuances and interpretations.
These
basic subunits of Urhobo culture
were prehistoric. That is, their existence predated modern
historiography that
assigns dates and ascertainable time periods to historical events.
Today,
Urhobo scholars and culture artists have arrived at a sum total of
twenty-two
of these units of Urhobo culture. By saying that they are prehistoric,
we mean
to say that all of them -- Agbarha-Ame,
Agbarha
Otor, Agbarho, Agbon, Arhavwarien, Avwraka, Ephron, Evwreni,
Eghwu,
Idjerhe, Oghara, Ogor, Okere, Okparebe, Okpe, Olomu, Orogun, Udu,
Ughelli, Ughievwen, Uvwie, and Uwherun – were well
settled before the rise of
significant historical epochs that defined the boundaries of medieval
and
modern Urhobo history. Thus, it is presumed that all these twenty-two
subunits
of Urhobo culture were in existence before the rise of Benin Empire in
the
1440s and before the arrival of the Portuguese in the Western Niger
Delta in
the 1480s.
To say that
Urhobo’s
subcultures were ancient and prehistoric is not to suggest that they
are of the
same age and generation. On the contrary, a group of these subcultures
was of
great antiquity, giving birth to newer subcultures. In general, the
older
subcultures were geographically separated from the less ancient ones.
There is
ample evidence from internal Urhobo folk knowledge and rituals that
suggests
that the oldest cultural subunits of Urhoboland are in the low-lying
swampy
southeastern region which is bounded by
Figure
1.1
Michael
Nabofa’s Geographical Display of Urhobo’s Cultural
Units
It is
noteworthy that in
precolonial times, Iyede in modern Isoko was counted among the earliest
subcultures of Urhoboland. It has since been re-assigned to Isoko,
suggesting
that the cultural walls that separate Urhobo from Isoko are thin.[4]
The migrations into Urhoboland that are variously claimed to have
occurred,
with points of origin in lands once ruled by the Ogiso dynasty in areas
now
named Benin, most probably followed the creeks into this swampy region
of
southeastern Urhoboland and Isokoland; rather than through the
impenetrable
rainforests of northwestern Urhoboland.
Urhobo‘s Subcultures and the
Conquest of Western Niger Delta’s Rainforests
Urhobo folk
history suggests that it was from the
swampy southeastern Urhobo region that the conquest of the bigger and
more
ample rainforests of northwestern Urhoboland was launched and
accomplished.
Those who achieved this extraordinary feat of conquest were fresh units
who
founded new sub-cultures in areas that they conquered, spreading Urhobo
language and culture across these virgin tropical rainforests. Some of
these
sub-cultures were established in groups. Thus, the so-called Oghwoghwa
Cultural Group (see Erivwo:
2003: 109-113) -- consisting of Ogor, Ughelli, Agbarha-Otor, and Orogun
–
probably launched their campaign in tandem, occupying contiguous vital
lands in
the rainforests of the Western Niger Delta. Other groups went farther
away from
the southeast homeland. Thus, having followed similar paths from Isoko
(in the
case of Agbon) and Erhowa (in modern Isoko, in the case of Okpe)) and
having
both registered settlements in Olomu in southeastern Urhobo, the
ancestors of
the Okpe people and of Agbon conquered and claimed vital territories
closer to
River Ethiope.
Another genre
of campaign of expansion of territory by a group of Urhobo sub-cultures
in the
rainforests of the Western Niger Delta is noteworthy. Just as Olomu
proved to
be a fertile starting point and a gateway for secondary groups of
sub-cultures
for campaigns of conquests of large portions of rainforests of the
Western
Niger Delta, so has Agbarha-Otor turned out to be a veritable cradle in
breeding new tertiary sub-cultures. It was from Agbarha-Otor that
groups left
to found Agbarha-Ame, in modern Warri, naming their subculture after
their
ancestral land as Agbarha. Then an even more arduous campaign was waged
when
two separate groups of Agbarha-Otor migrants crossed the River Ethiope
and
occupied virgin rainforests on the Western side of an untamed river.
They named
their new sub-cultures after their ancestral towns in Agbarha-Otor as
Idjerhe
and Oghara.
Historic Significance of the Conquest of
Western Niger Delta’s Rainforests by Urhobo Cultural Units
It is probably unnecessary
at this point of our analysis to
attempt a blow-by-blow account of the founding of the twenty-two
sub-groups of
Urhobo culture. But it is important that we attach some significance to
the above
statement of the groups of founding subcultures that are now more
controversially labeled as “clans” or “kingdoms.”
Modern Urhobos
correctly boast that they represent the largest group in the Western
Niger
Delta. Moreover, Urhobo occupies a sizeable chunk of the dry lands of
the
Western Niger Delta. All these we owe to those whose courage and
heroism
enabled the Urhobo to occupy prime rainforests. We must not forget that
we
shared the same rainforests with the Isoko and the Ukwuani. That our
share of
these lands is enviable owes everything to the fact that our
prehistoric
ancestors were able to conquer them.
“Conquest” is
an evocative term in historical scholarship. Conquerors often subdue
their own
people and then overcome others. Such conquerors of peoples are
frequently
crowned as kings. But the conquest upon which our ancestors embarked
was of a
different type. It was the conquest of an untamed and unoccupied
rainforest
that was deemed to be dangerous. Today, we cannot imagine how fearsome
these lands
were in their pristine form. They had wild animals in abundance. That
they are
all gone from our territory is probably due to the fact that part of
the
responsibility of our founding ancestors was to destroy wild animals.
It is
said that Evwreni was founded by a group of hunters who were hired by
Iyede to
kill menacing elephants. Elephants (eni
in Urhobo) lions (okpohrokpo), tigers
(ẹdjẹnẹkpo),
gorillas (ọsia), and
hippotemuses (ẹrhẹ) have
all gone from our lands, but they were once here in Urhoboland in some
abundance.
There is
another point of significance to be stressed. Apart from the fact that
the
secondary and tertiary subcultures of northwestern Urhoboland have
larger
territories than those in the low-lying swampy southeast, it is
noteworthy that
with the remarkable exception of Olomu these primeval subcultures of
the
southeast are almost all single-town cultures. In contrast, the larger
secondary and tertiary subcultures of the northwest are multiple-town
cultures.
The multiplicities of towns and villages in these cultures – in
Ughelli,
Agbarha-Otor, Orogun, Okpe, Agbon, Agbarho, Idjerhe, etc. – are
striking. Such
multiplication of settlements of towns and villages within each
subculture
enabled the conquest and occupation of as much territory as was
accomplished in
these lands that were once untamed.
Properties and
Characteristics of Cultural Units of Urhoboland
These subcultures of
Urhobo have borne the burden of Urhobo
history. They also carry the weight of Urhobo culture and its political
organisation.
Together, they all bear certain markers and characteristics that set
Urhobo and
its people apart from other cultures and peoples. So that we may be
sure that
these subcultures define what Urhobo is, we should map out their
properties and
characteristics.
(i) Territory
with Boundaries and Integrity
Every Urhobo subculture
has a
territory that has boundaries with other sub-cultures and occasionally
with
non-Urhobo cultural entities, such as the Isoko, Ijaw, and Ukwuani. A
unique aspect
of Urhoboland is that the Urhobo people were the first to occupy their
own
portions in the hinterland of the rainforests of Western Niger Delta.
In most
instances, therefore, bearers of each subculture of Urhobo occupy
territory
that their ancestors were the first to conquer and occupy. This
attribute of
Urhobo’s subcultures has imparted a sense of collective ownership of
the
territories of these units of Urhobo culture. The integrity of each of
Urhobo’s
subcultures derives from its ownership of its own territory that it has
conquered and occupied through its own exploits.
(ii) Sub-Cultural
Headquarters and Eponymous
Ancestral Shrines
Each subculture has its
own
headquarters. It is usually located in the first place in which the
founding
ancestors settled. These headquarters have eponymous ancestral shrines,
venerating the spirits of the founding ancestors whose names are
associated
with the entire subculture.
It
is noteworthy that the high regard for these ancestral shrines is
shared across
all communities, including Christian families. In effect, these
eponymous
ancestral shrines are regarded as historic institutions.
(iii) Endowment
of Individual’s Identity as an Urhobo Person
Every
person who claims to be Urhobo does so only through his or her
membership of a
subculture or subcultures as their father’s or mother’s birth right. No
one can
claim to be Urhobo directly, without belonging to a subculture or
subcultures
of Urhobo. This attribute carries with it the claim of certain rights
from members
of the subculture who are expected to work for the survival and
improvement of
the entire subculture. But it is an attribute that also imposes
important
responsibilities on the subculture in its relationship to individual
members.
Until recent times, protection of the individual and care for his
remains after
death were responsibilities of the subculture or its further divisions.
(iv) Totems
and Taboos of Sub-Cultures
For
the sake of maintaining the spiritual welfare of its members, some
subcultures
instituted their own set of totems and taboos whose observance would be
binding
on their communities. The power of totems instituted by Ughelli and
Orogun –
even over those of their members who are now converted to Christianity
– is
legendary. Other sub-cultures have similar regimes of totems.
(v) Sub-Cultural
Control of Urhobo’s Linguistic Dialects
In the realm of language, Urhobo is a land of
great dialectic variability. Remarkably, each subculture has its own
dialect of
the Urhobo language. Native speakers of the Urhobo language can easily
tell
from what sub-culture a speaker of the Urhobo language hails.
(vi) Urhobo
Sub-cultures and the Institution of King (Ovie)
One
of the most powerful cultural tools that each of Urhobo’s subcultures
has (or
had) at its disposal was the institution of kingship. Called Ovie
throughout Urhobo culture, an Urhobo king exists only at the
sub-cultural
level. Each subculture controls the rules that govern the ascension to
the subculture’s
throne. More importantly, each subculture could decide to exercise its
right to
have a king or not to have one. However, by common Urhobo usage, no
subculture
is allowed to have more than one Ovie at a time.[5]
It
is noteworthy that until the explosion
of royal institutions began in the 1950s, from instigation from various
Nigerian governments, only a handful of Urhobo’s sub-cultures exercised
their
inherent rights to have kings. Ogor and Ughelli had stable regimes of
kingship
for a good portion – but by no means all – of their history. The Okpe
had an
historic instance of monarchy that went awry and thereafter the Okpe
were
reluctant to revive the institution, until 1945, centuries afterwards.
The
Agbon people chose for centuries of their history to make do with the
maxim Okpako
r’ Agbon oy’ Ovie r’ Agbon – meaning, Agbon sub-culture’s eldest is
its
King. Many other attitudes toward royal institutions emanated from the
other
subcultures of Urhoboland. The point is, it was their right to
determine
whether they wanted a king and if so on what terms.
(vii) An
Axiom of Co-Equality among Urhobo Sub-Cultures
There
is an underlying axiom in the relations among the units of Urhobo
culture. It
is that they are co-equal. For instance, although Okpe and Agbon are
each many
times larger in land and population than most of the Urhobo subcultures
of the
southeast, they cannot claim to be culturally superior to the much
smaller
sub-cultural units of southeast Urhoboland, such as Okparebe and
Arhavwarien.
British
Colonial Rule and the Naming of Urhobo’s Sub-Cultures as Clans
British
colonial rule
in Urhoboland began effectively in the first decade of the 20th
century, following a delay lasting many years (1894-1899) on account of
a
dispute between the Royal Niger Company and agents of the Niger Coast
Protectorate Government over what British interest had administrative
jurisdiction in Urhoboland (see Salubi 1958). When British colonial
rule
commenced, it was clear that the British had little knowledge of Urhobo
culture. This was largely because missionaries had not been as active
in the
Western Niger Delta as they had been elsewhere, say in Yorubaland and
Igboland
(see Ekeh 2005).
The
British made up for lost ground in
their understanding of Urhobo culture by relying heavily on
“intelligence
reports” provided by colonial administrative officers. For centuries,
Europeans, including the British, relied on Atlantic coastal peoples
for their
information on the Urhobo. As it turned out, much of that information
was
either wrong or outright mischievous.[6]
Now, the colonial administrators’ intelligence reports sought to paint
a
correct picture of Urhobo ethnography. These efforts led the British to
conclude that Urhobo culture was essentially based on a clan system.
They
identified the units that we have been calling Urhobo’s subcultures
along with
many of their properties that we described above.
How
did the British colonial officers
come up with the word “clans” to describe these subcultures of
Urhoboland? By
the early 1900s and 1910s, when the label was applied, Colonial Social
Anthropology was not mature enough to be helpful to colonial officers
in their
efforts at understanding such entities as Urhobo. It is more likely
that the
label was picked up from Scottish history of Clans. In many ways,
Urhobo
sub-cultures were very much like ancient Scottish clans.
Urhobo
Reactions to British Colonial Ethnography of Urhoboland
As can be
imagined,
Urhobos were the principal informants for those who composed the
intelligence
reports. These reports were of course not made public, but key
decisions were
made on the strength of the information provided in them. It was
therefore the
British policies, apparently based on the intelligence reports, which
the
Urhobo people could judge. While accepting and even appreciating many
administrative policies of the British Colonial Government, a good
number of
them were rejected by the Urhobo people who fought against their
implementation
and indeed for their reversal.
Two
instances will illustrate the point. The British wrongly assigned
Orogun and
Avwraka (which they misnamed as Abraka) to Kuale [that is, Ukwuani]
Division in
Urhobo
Progress Union arose in the 1930s as a vehicle for conveying Urhobo
concerns to
the British Colonial Government. One of the first public
responsibilities of
Urhobo Progress Union was to convey Urhobo’s objection on the wrong
rendering
of their name to the British. Urhobos objected to unacceptable names
given by
the British to Urhobo and its sub-units, obviously owing to
pronunciation
problems that the British encountered with complicated Urhobo names.
Thus, the
British had difficulties with the “rh” in Urhobo. They simplified it,
changing
“Urh” to S” and thus yielding “Sobo,” a name that Urhobos found
offensive.[7]
Urhobo Progress Union fought very hard to change Urhobo’s spoilt name
and it
succeeded when the British made a correction in a Gazette of October 1,
1938.
Urhobo Progress Union was itself involved in making changes in its own
sphere,
changing its name from its previous version of Urhobo Progressive Union
in the
late 1930s.
We
have pointed to these Urhobo reactions in order to highlight the point
that the
Urhobo people were not unaware of what the British were doing with
their
cultural institutions. Urhobo Progress Union certainly knew of the
label
“Clans” which the British used to describe Urhobo’s sub-cultures. It
had no
objection. Indeed, UPU employed the term clans in its official duties
of
working for Urhobo progress. Right up until the mid-1960s, when UPU was
in its
high phase of activities on behalf of the Urhobo people, it used the
term clans
frequently. Thus, in his 1965 address to the General Council of Urhobo
Progress
Union, the President-General of the
I would love to hope,
indeed expect,
that the degree of oneness and unity so transparently exhibited at
Sapele on
the occasion [of Urhobo National Day Celebration] will diffuse down to
our
different clan areas and be
reflected in our ordinary life and day-to-day dealings with one another
in our
towns and villages (Salubi 1965, emphasis added).
It
should be added that Nigerian nationalist scholars, including
especially
historians, objected to the use of such anthropological terms as tribes
and
clans, considering them to be derogatory and offensive. However, the
general
rejection of “clans” was from outside Urhoboland. The much preferred
term of
“kingdoms” did not catch up with Urhobo nationalist sentiments until
the late
1990s!
Nigerian
Governments’ Interactions with Urhobo’s Sub-Cultures
Various
Nigerian
Governments, at the Regional and State levels particularly, which
followed
British Colonial Government, have also dealt with the significance of
these
sub-cultural entities that the British labelled as clans of Urhoboland.
It is
fair to say that most Nigerian Governments have accepted and respected
the fact
that Urhobo is in essence a confederation of twenty-two sub-cultures
whose
bases and roots are ancient and prehistoric. Until the bizarre incident
of 2006
in which Delta State Government sought to split an Urhobo sub-cultural
unit
into two, all previous Nigerian Governments had respected the integrity
of each
of the twenty-two units of Urhobo culture. Before dealing with the
abnormality
of that 2006 legislative episode by the Delta State Government that
clearly
violated the creed of Urhobo history and culture, it will be helpful to
sketch
how various previous generations of Nigerian governments, responded to
Urhobo’s
cultural system. Such an outline will probably help us all to see why
the 2006
legislative affront on Urhobo history and culture is so remarkably
different
from the conduct of previous Nigerian Governments.
How Western Nigerian Government
Dealt with
Action Group’s Difficulties with the Urhobo People
The first
Nigerian
Government which the Urhobo had to deal with was led by the Action
Group party
of
The
Action Group did its utmost to
insinuate itself into Urhobo political affairs. Its bluntest tool was
invocation of a property of Urhobo sub-culture. It is that every
sub-culture
was entitled to have an Ovie. It so happened that in the 1950s few of
Urhobo’s
sub-cultures had their own Ivie. The Action Group Government therefore
orchestrated the selection of candidates for the throne of Ovie in each
sub-culture where there was no seating Ovie. The Action Group supported
its own
candidates for these thrones.
Although
this ploy did not work in
convincing Urhobos to vote for the Action Group at the polls, it opened
up a
new chapter in Urhobo history. Playing within the logic of Urhobo
culture that
allocated the right of kingship to its sub-cultures, it nonetheless
expanded
Urhobo’s royal institutions well beyond what the Urhobos themselves
wanted. One
reason why many sub-cultures of Urhobo neglected to exercise their
right to
have a king was that it was costly to maintain an Ovie. Now, members of
the new
class of Ivie were more dependent on Government subsidies than on their
own
people, opening up new dynamics in Urhobo public affairs.
Mid-West
Government and Ordered Selection of Ivie
By the time
the
Mid-West Region was carved out of the Western Region in 1964, it was
very well
established that kingship was mandatory in Urhobo sub-cultures, still
then
called clans. What the Ministry of Chieftaincy Affairs sought to do was
to
bring order to the selection of the Ovie of each sub-culture. Urhobo
chieftains
seemed to have warmed up to the idea of this widespread kingship,
hoping that
it was one way of gaining sponsorship from the Government.
Two
facts followed from this
inordinate expansion of royal institutions in Urhoboland. The first is
that the
resulting Ivie were now ever more dependent on the Government. But
their sheer
numbers meant that they could not be as well cared for as if they were
fewer.
The other fact is that the kings became less dependent on their own
people. These
are dynamics that were liable to affect an institution that was
invented from
the necessity and imperatives of survival in a dangerous rainforest. It
was no
longer quite clear what the functions of the Ivie were. No doubt, many
Government functionaries saw them as agents of the Government.
Whatever
views one holds of the
institution of Ovie, the Government had come to play a major role in
moulding
its place and functions in Urhobo culture. The catastrophic events of
the 2006
legislation that sought to create an Urhobo sub-culture from the thin
pages of
a Government Gazette probably represent the ultimate in the unintended
consequences of Government take-over of an ancient Urhobo convention.
But
before we examine that notorious event, we must first weigh the
semantic
changes that occurred in the characterization of units of Urhobo
culture.
Renaming
Urhobo’s Sub-cultures as Kingdoms
There is a
measure of
trivialization that has recently crept into the naming of Urhobo
institutions
as they are rendered in a culturally alien English language. For an
Urhobo --
particularly for an Ughelli person -- there is an emotional difference
between
saying: “Ovie r’ Ughele” (in Urhobo)
or “Ovie of Ughelli” (in English).
The trivialization gets worse, along with the rather serious
grammatical
infraction that should be evident, in a new popular rendering in
English of the
same appellation: “Ovie of Ughelli
Kingdom.”[8]
The infatuation with this new-found word “kingdom” descends down the
chain of
the modern Urhobo aristocracy. To give an example from another
sub-culture of
Urhoboland: In his exemplary curriculum vitae, which was crafted some
time in
the early 1980s, Chief T. E. A. Salubi cites one of his most valued
titles as “Okakuro of Agbon.” Since the late
1990s, the same title is now cited by its holders as “Okakuro
of Agbon Kingdom.”[9]
Such
banality of language regarding
aristocratic titles in recent times has arisen from the introduction of
the
English word “kingdom” into modern Urhobo culture. Its rampant and
gratuitous
use has caused several problems for our understanding of Urhobo
institutions.
First, “kingdom” is virtually untranslatable into Urhobo language.
Second, it
has been used as a replacement – that is, supposedly, as the synonym --
for the
English word “clan.” Remember that “clan” was introduced into Urhobo by
British
colonial administrators as a way of characterizing Urhobo’s
sub-cultures.
The
origin of this new usage of
“kingdom” has been traced to HRH Adjara III and Andy Omokri’s (1997) Urhobo Kingdoms: Political
and Social
Systems.
This is how the late Professor F. M. A. Ukoli sketched the rise of
the term “kingdoms” in modern Urhobo culture:
The Urhobo constitute an
ethnic
group, but there is great diversity in the origins of the various clans
as well
as diversity in their culture. Indeed, the differences are so marked
that H.R.H
Adjara III and Omokri, in their recent book Urhobo
Kingdoms, elevate the 22 clans which constitute the entire Urhobo
tribe to
the status of kingdoms (Ukoli 2007: 647).
Remarkably,
Adjara III and Omokri did
not discard the term clan in their analysis of Urhobo social and
political
systems. In fact, once one moves beyond the rather dramatic title of
their
book, they were fairly respectful of the term “clan.” They define
Urhobo in
terms of its clans, not kingdoms: “At present there are twenty-two
clans in
Urhoboland. Most of the clans are made up of groups of villages which
trace
their origin to a common ancestor” (p. 5). Similarly, they define the
Ovie in
terms of the clan: “The institution of clanheadship in Urhoboland is a
most
revered one. In some clans, the clan head is known as Ovie literally
translated
to be king” (p. 16).
Whatever
Adjara III and Omokri
intended to say in the pages of their book, it is the book’s title
“Urhobo
Kingdoms” that has won the day. Adjara III’s aristocratic colleagues
have
understood the book as recommending that the term clans be replaced by
the
apparently more appealing and more ponderous “kingdom.” And the
Government of
Delta State has readily adopted the new terminology, with consequences
that are
far removed from what any lovers of Urhobo history and culture will be
pleased
to accept.
Throughout
the course
of Nigerian history, from the 1950s onwards at any rate, Nigerian
Governments
have accepted and then manipulated existing institutions of traditional
rulership. They operate in that way probably in order to seek advantage
for
their political parties and to please powerful individuals in those
parties. In
doing so, they have deposed opponents and installed supporters as
occupiers of
such existing traditional institutions of rulership. Some prominent
examples
will illustrate this point. In the 1950s, Ahmadu Bello’s Government of
Northern
Nigeria removed Emir Sanusi of
In
all these instances, previous
Nigerian Governments accepted the traditions of the people and the
institution
of rulership that they mandated. What these previous Nigerian
Governments did
was to exploit the logic of these traditions by placing their
supporters on the
seats of traditional rulership, while removing their opponents. None of
them
defied the traditions of the people by creating new realms. The
Government of
Northern Nigeria did not split
In
such respects, the conduct of Delta
State Government in 2006 in splitting up Urhobo’s Idjerhe sub-culture
and in
creating a new “Kingdom” of Mosogar from the ancient territories of
Idjerhe is
unprecedented in the annals of Urhobo history and culture. Moreover, it
would
be difficult to find similar examples of the Government’s defiling of a
people’s traditions elsewhere in
The
British had active and intense
contacts with the Urhobo people for at least fifty years, for much of
the first
half of the 20th century. Although they came as colonizers,
they
nonetheless respected the integrity of Urhobo history and culture. They
correctly identified Urhobo’s ancient sub-cultures and acted within
their
framework and logic. Similarly, the Action Group Government that took
over from
the British respected the traditions of the Urhobo people, despite
historic
difficulties between them and the political party that controlled the
Government at that time. And it is fair to say that the Mid-West and
Bendel
State Governments were largely respectful of Urhobo traditions.
So
why has this grave violation of
Urhobo history and culture occurred in a governmental regime that has
no
standing quarrel with the Urhobo people?
Two explanations have been offered by some Urhobo leaders who
have
bothered to discuss this matter. The first is that people in Government
do not
bother themselves with the creed of Urhobo history and culture. They
say that
some politicians would be surprised that any worries about Urhobo
history and
culture have been expressed. The second reason that has been suggested
for
permitting this brazen act of violation of Urhobo history and culture
to occur
is that the term “kingdoms” has become so trivialized that people in
Government
now believe that they can create them. As one Urhobo leader put it,
“People in
Asaba would hesitate to create ‘clans’ but not ‘kingdoms.’”
It
must be noted that the Delta State
Government has no Constitutional powers to create local governments in
Unforeseen and Untoward
Consequences of
There are
numerous
reasons why the Urhobo people should be troubled by the spectre of
Delta State Government
taking over the control of Urhobo traditions, an instance of which was
the
so-called creation of a “kingdom” in Idjerhe sub-culture of Urhoboland.
We will
confine ourselves to only a few of these reasons.
First,
the Idjerhe episode of “kingdom creation” is most likely to be imitated
and
repeated elsewhere – if it is allowed to survive. If every new
installment of
Delta State Government that comes to power has the right and authority
to
create “kingdoms” in Urhoboland, then we should expect a multiplicity
of new
“kingdoms” -- or “clans,” designating them by their other English label
– to be
created for Urhobos within several decades. There are everywhere
short-sighted
and ambitious politicians who will ask to be made kings of even small
villages
if the opportunity arises. Internal divisions within each of Urhobo’s
sub-cultures may precipitate such clamour for kingship of new
“kingdoms.” While
there may be ready-made cases of divisions that will readily prompt any
new
Delta State Governments for new “kingdoms, the greater danger is that
even the
more stable and established instances of kingship in Urhoboland will
not be
safe from the spread of the cancer of Government’s “kingdom creation.”
Second,
any increase in the number of Ivie in Urhoboland is a threat to the
strength of
our royal institutions. Many Urhobo leaders of thought already consider
the
twenty-two Ivie, who derive their authority from Urhobo culture, to be
on the
high side. It should be recalled that in the 1930s and 1940s, opinion
leaders
in Urhoboland and its Diaspora seriously weighed the option of
initiating a
single Urhobo kingship. If we cannot achieve such a goal, we must
nevertheless
not further weaken our circumstances by foolishly allowing the creation
of
artificial “kingdoms” in Urhoboland at the whim of Governments who may
not
always be well disposed towards the vibrancy of Urhobo cultural
formations. The
addition of a single Ovie to the system of twenty-two kings that we now
have is
a threat to our culture and to the dignity of those who currently
occupy the
thrones of Ivie in Urhoboland.
Concluding
Thoughts on Necessary Remedies
When the
Urhobo people
face a collective crisis, our usual resort is to ask Urhobo Progress
Union to intervene
on behalf of the Urhobo people. In our estimation, the Idjerhe episode
of
“kingdom creation” represents a crisis of a high level of disorder in
our
cultural existence as a people. We must rely on Urhobo Progress Union
to
persuade the factions in Idjerhe to do what all patriotic Urhobos do:
at the
end, the survival and welfare of our hard-won culture are important for
our
individual existence. What does it profit an Urhobo man if he becomes
an Ovie,
if by doing so he weakens the institution of Ovie? And what does it
profit any
Urhobo community if it gains a “kingdom” that leads to the downfall of
a system
for which all of our ancestors fought so hard? We trust that the UPU
will be
able to bring all the sections in Idjerhe together to settle what ought
to be
an internal problem.
On
this score of persuasion, we also
ask the UPU to apply gentle suasion on the Delta State Government to
rescind
its ill-advised “kingdom creation” exercise in Urhobo’s Idjerhe
sub-culture and
to kindly desist from any attempt to control Urhobo culture. It is not
something that the Urhobo people should permit.
Finally,
we appeal to Urhobo Progress
Union to consider most seriously setting up a Committee that will study
and
recommend ways of regulating the titles that our kings and chieftains
bear. It
may be discovered, to the pleasure of us all, that there is no need to
render
Urhobo aristocratic titles in English at all. We are sure that this is
a matter
that will be of interest to the esteemed Kings of Urhoboland.
References
Adjara III, H.R.H.,
O.I. and
Omokri, A. 1997. Urhobo Kingdoms: Political and Social Systems.
Textflow
Ltd.,
Edevbie, Onoawarie.
2007.
“Ownership of Colonial Warri.” Pp 233-257 in Peter P. Ekeh, editor, History of the Urhobo People of Niger Delta.
Ekeh, Peter P.,
(2005). “A
Profile of Urhobo Culture.” Pp. 1-50 in Peter P. Ekeh, Studies
in Urhobo Culture.
Erivwo,
S. U.
2003. “The Oghwoghwa Group of Group: Ogo, Ughele, Agbarha-Oto, and
Orogun.” Pp. 109-113 in Otite, Onigu, ed. The
Urhobo People. Shaneson C. I. Limited. Second Edition, 2003.
Foster,
Whitney.
1969. African
Historical Studies 2(2):
289-305.
Reprinted in Peter P. Ekeh, editor, History
of the Urhobo People of Niger Delta.
Moore, William A. 1936. History
of Itsekiri.
Otite
O.1973. Autonomy
and Dependence. The
Pereira,
Salubi, T. E. A.
1958. “The
Establishment of British Administration in Urhobo Country, 1891-1913.”
Reprinted in Peter P. Ekeh, editor, History
of the Urhobo People of Niger Delta.
Salubi, T. E. A.
1965. President-General’s Address delivered by
Chief the Honourable T. E. A. SALUBI, O.B.E., M.H.A., President-General
of
Urhobo Progress Union, to the 16th Session of the Annual General
Council of the
Union held at Warri from Sunday, the 26th, to Thursday the 30th,
December,
1965.
Ukoli, F. M. A.
1998 [As
reprinted in 2007] “The Place of the Elite in Urhobo Leadership.” Pp
647-656 in
Peter P. Ekeh, editor, History of the
Urhobo People of Niger Delta.