11/06/2026
Warri Federal Constituency Delineation
Debate:
A Closer Look at the
Claims
The debate over the Warri Federal Constituency delineation has generated intense reactions among the Itsekiri, Ijaw, and Urhobo ethnic nationalities. Chief Barr. Robinson Ariyo has emerged as one of the most vocal advocates of the Itsekiri position, appearing in several media interviews to challenge both the Supreme Court judgment and INEC's implementation of the delineation exercise.
However, some of the claims made in these interviews deserve closer scrutiny.
* First, Chief Ariyo has repeatedly suggested that the Supreme Court judgment was fraudulently obtained by the Ijaw plaintiffs. That is a very serious allegation. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and judgments are based on evidence and legal arguments presented before it. If there was indeed fraud in obtaining the judgment, the proper avenue would be to present evidence before a competent court. Public allegations alone cannot invalidate a subsisting Supreme Court judgment.
* Second, he has referred to an earlier court judgment which allegedly compelled INEC to revert to a 10-ward structure. What is often left out of the discussion is that the basis of that judgment was that INEC carried out a delineation exercise before the constitutional period allowed for such a review had elapsed. By the time the appeal process had run its course, more than seventeen years had passed. This raises a legitimate legal question as to whether the original judgment had become academic, given the passage of time and the changed circumstances.
* Third, on the issue of coordinates allegedly used by INEC from outside Delta State, Chief Ariyo himself admitted during an interview with Rufai Oseni on ARISE TV that the coordinates in question were obtained by members of his own side. If that is the case, it becomes difficult to see how a court would accept such a claim without independent verification from credible technical experts. Courts generally rely on evidence that can be objectively tested and authenticated.
* Fourth, the claim that there were no Itsekiri representatives during the field delineation exercise does not appear consistent with publicly available information. Among those identified as Itsekiri representatives during the process were:
• Hon. Toju Ighomienyetam
• Dr. Andrew Omagbemi Igban
• Etih Godspower Oritsegbubemi
Whether one agrees with the outcome of the exercise or not, the presence of these individuals contradicts the suggestion that no Itsekiri representatives participated in the fieldwork.
Finally, some have argued that the Ijaw community should have informed the Itsekiri and Urhobo communities about the litigation that eventually resulted in the Supreme Court judgment. However, the legal dispute was between the plaintiffs and INEC. In law, it is the responsibility of the parties before the court to prosecute and defend their case. The burden of notification does not ordinarily fall on one ethnic group to inform another about a suit in which they are not parties.
At the end of the day, repeated media appearances cannot replace evidence. The issues surrounding the Warri Federal Constituency delineation will ultimately be determined by facts, documents, field data, and the decisions of competent courts—not by the number of interviews granted by any stakeholder.
The focus should remain on verifiable facts and constitutional processes rather than rhetoric.
