A brewing controversy over the planned foundation laying of an Okpe Kingdom sub-palace in Sapele, Delta State, has exposed deep historical, legal, and cultural fault lines between the Okpe and Itsekiri ethnic nationalities, turning what was initially a celebratory traditional announcement into a heated public dispute with wider implications for peace in the area.
The tension was triggered after the Orodje of Okpe Kingdom, His Majesty Orhue I, Major General Felix Mujakperuo (Rtd), announced plans to lay the foundation of an Okpe Kingdom sub-palace in Sapele on Saturday, January 24, 2026. The invitation, shared publicly and amplified on social media, drew enthusiastic responses from Okpe sons, daughters, and supporters who described the project as long overdue and symbolic of Okpe heritage and identity in Sapele.
Supporters hailed the proposed palace as a cultural and administrative hub that would reinforce traditional institutions and preserve Okpe history in a town they insist lies squarely within ancestral Okpe land. Messages of goodwill poured in, with many praising the Orodje’s leadership and vision, and others framing the project as a rightful assertion of identity. Traditional chants and expressions of loyalty dominated online reactions, reflecting strong communal backing for the initiative.
However, the celebratory mood was abruptly disrupted by a strongly worded public notice issued by Chief Emmanuel Oritsejolomi Uduaghan, the Alema of Warri Kingdom and administrator of several Itsekiri communities within Sapele. In the statement, titled “Caveat Emptor,” Uduaghan challenged the legitimacy of the sub-palace project, asserting that Sapele is not exclusively Okpe land and insisting that, from time immemorial, Sapele belongs to the Itsekiri nation.
Uduaghan anchored his position on colonial intelligence reports dating back to 1930, which, he argued, listed Okpe villages and did not include Sapele among them. He further referenced the judgment in Chief Ayomano v. Ginuwa II, contending that the ruling did not confer ownership of Sapele on the Okpe people but merely granted them 510 acres of land. He warned that any attempt by the Orodje of Okpe to operate beyond that land area would amount to provocation and could trigger a communal crisis, vowing resistance through all lawful means.
Read also:
- Okpe Union writes CAC, flays alleged impostors
- Oborevwori pledges timely delivery of Asaba flood control project as work reaches 72% — Izeze
- Governor Otti advocates training to create employment for youths
The publication immediately drew a robust rejoinder from the Okpe Interest Group, which dismissed Uduaghan’s claims as historically distorted and deliberately inflammatory. In a detailed response, the group maintained that Sapele lies entirely within Okpe territorial land, stressing that Okpe people are neither settlers nor guests in the town but its indigenous owners. According to the group, Sapele developed as a major urban centre on ancestral Okpe land, with other ethnic groups, including the Itsekiri, accommodated over time under Okpe traditions of hospitality.
The Okpe Interest Group further pointed to what it described as a clear and historically recognised boundary between Sapele and Abigborodo at Hole Creek along the Benin River, arguing that this demarcation has long separated Okpe and Itsekiri territories. It rejected the selective use of colonial intelligence reports, noting that such documents were administrative tools and did not transfer land ownership or extinguish indigenous territorial rights.
On the contentious court judgment often cited in land ownership debates, the group accused critics of misrepresenting the ruling in Chief Ayomano v. Ginuwa II. It insisted that the judgment neither declared Sapele as Itsekiri land nor limited Okpe authority in the town to 510 acres, describing contrary interpretations as legally unsustainable and misleading.
Defending the authority of the Orodje, the group stated that he remains the constitutionally recognised and historically legitimate traditional ruler over Okpe land, including Sapele, and that the establishment of a sub-palace is an internal cultural and administrative matter of the Okpe Kingdom. It argued that the project does not amount to encroachment but rather reflects longstanding traditional structures.
The rejoinder also took a personal swipe at the Alema, questioning his standing to make sweeping territorial claims and accusing him of attempting to inflame ethnic sentiment. While reaffirming the Okpe people’s commitment to peaceful coexistence, the group warned against mistaking hospitality for weakness and cautioned that persistent provocations could destabilise the area.
As the war of words continues, observers note that the dispute over the Sapele sub-palace goes beyond bricks and mortar, touching on unresolved questions of history, identity, and authority that have lingered for decades. With emotions running high on both sides, traditional rulers, community leaders, and government authorities are being urged to tread carefully to prevent the controversy from escalating into open conflict.
For now, the foundation laid has become a flashpoint in a larger struggle over who owns the narrative of Sapele’s past and who shapes its future, leaving residents watching anxiously as claims and counterclaims continue to dominate public discourse.
