Akpabio’s South- south political Realignment speech: Redlines and the case for a warri State

By Ojumude Tosan

When Senate President Godswill Akpabio appeared in Anioma traditional attire, presented by Senator Ned Nwoko at the APC South-South Zonal Congress in Asaba on March 25, 2026, his endorsement of the proposed Anioma State transcended ceremonial symbolism. It was not a casual political gesture, as some have suggested, but a statement carrying profound constitutional and geopolitical implications.

As the serving President of the Senate, the only institution constitutionally empowered under Sections 8 and 9 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to create states and alter Nigeria’s internal structure, Akpabio’s remarks must be understood within the context of formal legislative signaling. His proposal to designate Asaba as the capital of a new Anioma State, alongside the elevation of Warri as the capital of a restructured Delta State, effectively introduces what can now be described as the South-South Political Realignment Speech.

This speech directly or indirectly marks a critical shift that state creation in Nigeria is no longer confined to mass wishes, ethnic aspirations or regional lobbying; it has entered the domain of national legislative priority. As the 10th Senate advances deliberations on restructuring, stakeholders can no longer dismiss such pronouncements as mere political rhetoric.

Within this emerging framework, the Itsekiri ethnic nationality presents a clear and non-negotiable geopolitical redline. As the indigenous people of the Warri Kingdom, their claims are not speculative but are grounded in a long history of judicial affirmation. From the landmark Privy Council decision in Ometan v. Dore Numa (1934) to the Supreme Court ruling in SC.328/1972, Itsekiri territorial rights have been consistently upheld. These legal precedents establish not only ownership but also historical sovereignty over Warri and its environs. Accordingly, any restructuring of Delta State that fails to address this reality risks deepening, rather than resolving, longstanding tensions. The primary demand, therefore, is clear, “the creation of a Warri State, which serves as a sub-national entity that reflects the Itsekiri’s indigenous heritage, political identity, and historical standing.”

This is not merely an administrative request but a constitutional, historical, and existential imperative, formally placed before the Nigerian state by the Itsekiri Nation through the Itsekiri Leaders of Thought (ILOT). Through its 2024 constitutional amendment submissions to the National Assembly, the demand for the creation of a Warri State was unequivocally advanced, embedding it firmly within Nigeria’s formal restructuring and constitutional reform agenda.

Recognizing that state creation in Nigeria involves stringent constitutional thresholds, it is prudent to consider secondary safeguards should legislative hurdles impede the creation of a Warri State.

First, the designation of Itsekiri homelands as a Federal Protected Territory / Special Area, functioning as a constitutionally recognized administrative enclave.

Second, the revival of arrangements similar to the Warri Special Area under the Mid-Western Nigeria Constitution, which historically acknowledged the region’s unique status.

Third, a Coastal State framework, which offers a broader strategic realignment option. This approach would potentially connect Itsekiri territories with the Yoruba-speaking Southwest, reflecting historical, linguistic, and cultural linkages documented in the Willink Commission Report (1958). Such alignment provides a clearer basis for political coordination and cultural continuity.

According to the Willink Commission Report (1958), minority groups including the Itsekiri maintained historical, linguistic, and cultural linkages with the Yoruba-speaking communities of the Southwest, suggesting that strategic alignment along these historically coherent lines could support political stability and cultural preservation.

Such options are not radical departures but pragmatic mechanisms for ensuring the political survival and cultural continuity of a historically significant indigenous minority within the Nigerian federation.

Any serious discourse on restructuring in the South-South region and Niger Delta States to be precise must confront what may be termed the logic of separation. Historical evidence demonstrates that the region’s recurring conflicts are not accidental but structurally induced.

Scholarly analyses, including Albert (1999), highlight how administrative decisions such as the 1997 relocation of local government headquarters served as catalysts for prolonged violence. These decisions often ignored indigenous territorial boundaries, thereby fueling perceptions of encroachment and marginalization.

The pattern is clear and repetitive. Forced cohabitation within artificially constructed administrative units has consistently produced instability. In many cases, such arrangements are interpreted as deliberate attempts to dilute or erode indigenous identities.

Past interventions, including special territorial protections under earlier regional governments, sought to correct these anomalies. The present National Assembly must draw lessons from these precedents. The path to sustainable peace in Nigeria especially the Niger Delta states in the South-South region lies not in political improvisation but in structural clarity.

The principle is straightforward, as peace is best achieved through clearly defined, indigenous-based boundaries. The continued “bunching” of the Itsekiri into administrative units with groups whose territorial ambitions fundamentally conflict with theirs only perpetuates cycles of tension.

Since the creation of Bendel State and subsequently Delta State, such “territorial marriages” have repeatedly failed, producing volatility rather than cohesion after the Midwest Warri Special Area Clause collapsed alongside all constitutional rights under the then military junta’s decree. A restructured framework must therefore prioritize boundary clarity over administrative convenience.

Nigeria stands at a pivotal moment, a Great Redefinition of its federal structure. With the 10th Senate actively engaging in debates on restructuring, the opportunity to correct historical imbalances is both real and time-sensitive.

For the Itsekiri, the strategic objective must shift toward consolidation rather than expansion. The pursuit of vast but contested territories has proven costly, often leading to political dilution and recurring conflict.

This moment demands difficult but necessary choices, as the Itsekiri must now focus on consolidating a fortified, undisputed core territory where administrative authority is absolute and cultural heritage is fully preserved. Prioritizing this defensible core is not a retreat but a strategic move to strengthen governance, secure key resources, and ensure long-term stability. Claims over peripheral contested areas should be managed as future engagement zones, allowing the Itsekiri to maintain leverage while avoiding recurrent conflict that undermines internal cohesion and external security.

Experience has shown that contested zones often benefit rival expansionist interests due to structural weaknesses in institutions, thereby threatening sustainable stability. The recent controversies surrounding the naming of the Nigeria Maritime University, Okenrenkoko (instead of Okenrenghigho), national boundary adjustments, and INEC ward delineation anomalies underscore this reality.

By contrast, a consolidated Warri entity, whether as a State, Protected Territory / Special Area, or strategically aligned region, offers cultural preservation, political stability, enhanced security in the oil-rich coastal corridor, and a more coherent framework for governance.

Global precedents reinforce this logic that stable political entities are built on clear, identity-affirming boundaries, not on expansive but fragmented territories.

For any restructuring to succeed, two foundational principles must remain non-negotiable. Foremost among them is the recognition of indigenous identity and authority that predates colonial intervention from the Niger Area administration through the Southern Protectorate to the 1914 amalgamation that birthed the Nigerian state. This historical continuity cannot be subordinated to post-colonial administrative convenience. Any new arrangement must therefore respect the territorial jurisdiction of the Itsekiri as the indigenous people of Warri, an authority anchored in the Benin River Treaties of 1884 and 1894 and consistently reaffirmed through judicial pronouncements.

Michael Lobban, in his publication with Cambridge University Press, emphasizes that this historical foundation is neither incidental nor symbolic. Prior to executing the 1884 Treaty of Protection, Itsekiri chiefs led by Chief Nanna Olomu expressed clear skepticism toward the British concept of “protection,” insisting on an explicit definition to ensure it did not imply the loss of their territorial sovereignty or established trade monopolies. In response, Consul Edward Hewett was compelled to provide a written assurance, stating: “The Queen does not want to take your country or your markets, but at the same time is anxious that no other nation should take them.” This assurance formed the basis of their consent. Furthermore, the chiefs reinforced their economic autonomy by successfully insisting on the removal of Article VI, the Free Trade clause from the standard treaty framework.

Second is the direct resource management. A distinct Itsekiri entity would enable more effective management of oil and maritime resources, reducing reliance on intermediary structures that often generate conflict. Leveraging frameworks such as the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) within a clearly defined indigenous territory would not only strengthen local governance but also contribute to broader national stability.

From my considered perspective, the South-South Political Realignment Speech by the Nigeria Senate President marks a decisive inflection point in Nigeria’s restructuring discourse. It has shifted the question of state creation from speculative mass politics to actionable elite national policy. Yet, restructuring must not devolve into a mere exercise in cartographic redesign. It must address the structural roots of conflict and lay the foundation for enduring peace.

In conclusion, my message to the Itsekiri is unequivocal, which is they should “never agree to any restructuring without a clearly defined and legally protected Warri geopolitical entity.”

For the Nigerian state, the obligation is even clearer. True and lasting stability lies in the recognition and protection of indigenous land rights, to which Nigeria is bound under international law, particularly the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Central to this obligation is the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which requires that no administrative, territorial, or political restructuring affecting indigenous lands can be legitimately undertaken without the prior consent of the Itsekiri people.

In the case of the Itsekiri, these rights are not abstract, they are grounded in history, codified in treaties, and consistently reaffirmed through judicial pronouncements. Any attempt to bypass this consent framework would not only violate international commitments but may also render such restructuring politically contested, legally challengeable, and fundamentally unsustainable.

In the end, no federation can endure on contested ground. Stability is not negotiated through convenience, but secured through justice. Until Nigeria aligns its restructuring with indigenous rights and historical truth, every attempt at reform will remain incomplete, and also every peace, temporary.

Ojumude Tosan Bishop, write from Warri,Delta State

The post Akpabio’s South- south political Realignment speech: Redlines and the case for a warri State appeared first on Vanguard News.