₦airaland Forum

Why Itsekiri Reject INEC’s Proposed Wards and Polling Units Delineation in Warri Federal Constituency
Constitutional and Political Implications
Omasanjuwa Ogharandukun

The Itsekiri ethnic nationality has formally rejected INEC’s proposed delineation of wards and polling units in Warri Federal Constituency, citing constitutional breaches, electoral injustice, and political imbalance. This analysis explores the legal, political, and historical implications of the controversy.

Warri is not just another city in Nigeria; it is a microcosm of the nation’s most delicate questions—ethnicity, oil politics, and electoral justice. At the heart of the Niger Delta, Warri Federal Constituency carries significant weight in national politics and the Nigerian economy. It is home to the Itsekiri, Ijaw, and Urhobo ethnic groups, all of whom have long contested for political representation, access to resources, and recognition of their place within Nigeria’s federation.

Against this backdrop, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conducted a field exercise to review and propose fresh delineations of wards and polling units in Warri South, Warri South-West, and Warri North Local Government Areas. Instead of resolving existing grievances, the exercise sparked a new round of controversy.

The Itsekiri ethnic nationality has rejected the outcome of INEC’s field work, citing violations of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Electoral Act 2022, and INEC’s own guidelines. They argue that the process overreached INEC’s constitutional mandate, created fictitious communities, misplaced polling units across state boundaries, and ultimately undermined the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.

This blogpost provides an authoritative analysis of the issue. It situates the Itsekiri rejection within Nigeria’s constitutional framework, examines historical precedents, and highlights the broader implications for electoral justice, democratic stability, and peace in Warri and beyond.


Section 1: INEC’s Constitutional Mandate

The starting point of any conversation on delineation is the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, particularly Section 114(1), which provides:

“The Independent National Electoral Commission shall review the division of every state into constituencies at intervals of not less than ten years, and may alter such constituencies in accordance with the provisions of this section to such extent as it may consider desirable in the light of the review.”

This provision empowers INEC to periodically review constituencies, wards, and polling units, primarily to ensure fair representation as population figures and settlements evolve.

The Constitution also provides in Section 114(2) that INEC may review constituencies in consequence of:

Alteration of state boundaries, or

The holding of a national census.

Neither of these conditions has occurred in Delta State in recent years. Thus, the only live issue was the periodic review required by Section 114(1).

The Supreme Court judgment in Hon. George Timinimi & Ors v. INEC (SC/143/2016) directed INEC to conduct a fresh delineation of wards and polling units in Warri Federal Constituency. Importantly, the court did not declare existing wards or polling units fictitious, nor did it impugn INEC’s voter register. The judgment merely reinforced the constitutional duty of periodic review.

Therefore, while INEC had the authority to conduct the exercise, the Itsekiri argue that the Commission exceeded its constitutional powers in the manner it carried out the field work.


Section 2: Why the Itsekiri Rejected INEC’s Field Report

According to the Itsekiri leadership, INEC’s field report on Warri’s wards and polling units is fatally flawed. Their objections can be grouped into four main categories:

1. Ultra Vires Acts by INEC

INEC allegedly went beyond its administrative mandate by:

Creating or recognizing communities not officially gazetted.

Attempting to determine ethnic ownership of territories.

Using unofficial population estimates from aerial surveys and Google maps.

Such actions, the Itsekiri argue, amount to administrative overreach. The Constitution does not empower INEC to decide community ownership, redraw ethnic boundaries, or invent new settlements.

2. Misplacement of Polling Units

Survey findings show several polling units placed in impossible or wrong locations:

Warri South-West LGA: 510 polling units listed outside the LGA; one polling unit (TURUFAGBENE PU 289) falls inside Edo State.

Warri North LGA: 99 polling units fall in Ondo and Edo States; some placed in rivers and swamps.

Warri South LGA: PU 16 “Merogun” listed at Deco Road, far from the actual Merogun community.

These errors undermine the credibility of the exercise and raise logistical questions about election-day voting.

3. Violation of Electoral Act 2022

Section 40(2) of the Electoral Act provides:

“The Commission shall establish adequate number of polling units in each registration area or electoral ward and shall allot voters to such polling units.”

The law requires INEC to rely on its voter register—an empirically valid database with biometric data—to determine where polling units should be located. By instead relying on contested maps and unofficial data, INEC violated both the spirit and letter of the Act.

4. Undermining Electoral Integrity

By creating fictitious or misplaced polling units, INEC risks inflating voter access in some areas while disenfranchising others. For the Itsekiri, this is not a neutral mistake but one that skews representation in favor of Ijaw and Urhobo communities, thereby entrenching political injustice.


Section 3: False Claims and Counter-Narratives

At a world press conference, Ijaw and Urhobo groups claimed they were denied electoral representation in Warri Federal Constituency. They described existing delineations as “gerrymandered” against them.

The Itsekiri counter that this narrative is misleading.

Ijaw and Urhobo Political Representation

Warri South-West LGA: Produced the Deputy Governor under Okowa, the current Speaker of the Delta State House of Assembly, and the LGA Chairman—all from Ijaw communities.

Warri North LGA: Former Chairman Hon. Smart Asukutu hailed from Egbema Ijaw.

Warri South LGA: Urhobo politicians have repeatedly occupied one of the two Assembly seats.

By contrast, the Itsekiri point out they have little to no political representation in Urhobo-dominated LGAs such as Sapele and Ethiope-West, or Ijaw strongholds like Burutu.

The Gerrymandering Argument

The claim that Warri’s delineation has historically disadvantaged Ijaw and Urhobo does not align with past records. In fact, the 1999 adjustment reduced Itsekiri Federal Constituencies from two to one, transferring a seat to the less-populated Burutu Ijaw. This remains a source of grievance for the Itsekiri, not their neighbors.


Section 4: Historical Context of Warri’s Delineation

To understand the controversy, one must revisit the evolution of Warri’s electoral map:

1992 Delineation: Warri had two Federal Constituencies (both occupied by Itsekiri) and four State Assembly Constituencies. Warri South had 10 wards (7 Itsekiri, 3 Urhobo), Warri North 10 wards (6 Itsekiri, 4 Ijaw).

1996 LGA Creation: Warri South-West was carved out of Warri North, producing 6 wards for Itsekiri and 4 for Ijaw.

1999 Review: INEC reduced Federal Constituencies from two to one, removing one from Itsekiri and awarding it to Ijaw of Burutu.

Each adjustment chipped away at Itsekiri representation, leaving them with fewer voices in Abuja despite being the demographic majority in the three Warri LGAs.


Section 5: The Warri Crisis and Misrepresentation

Ijaw and Urhobo spokesmen often claim the 1997–2003 Warri crises were caused by electoral imbalance. The Itsekiri reject this narrative.

The real flashpoint, they argue, was the relocation of Warri South-West LGA headquarters. Officially gazetted at Ogidigben (an Itsekiri area), it was illegally moved to Ogbe-Ijaw by state authorities. This unilateral move sparked violent conflicts, which escalated into what the Itsekiri describe as an attempted genocide against their people.

Linking the crisis to INEC delineation, therefore, is historically inaccurate and politically manipulative.


Section 6: Technical Review of INEC’s 2025 Field Report

Independent surveyors commissioned by the Itsekiri conducted a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of INEC’s coordinates. Their findings:

Warri South-West: Out of 1,287 polling units, 510 lie outside the LGA. One even falls inside Edo State.

Warri North: 99 polling units mapped into Ondo and Edo States. Some polling units located in uninhabitable swamps or rivers.

Warri South: Several polling units misplaced, with names not matching their actual locations.
Continue Reading Here : https://vocal.media/journal/why-itsekiri-reject-inec-s-proposed-wards-and-polling-units-delineation-in-warri-federal-constituency
@followers
#ITSEKIRI #warriyouths #delta #nigeria #nigeriansindiaspora

sultannights:
The Itsekiri rejected INEC’s proposed ward and polling unit delineation in Warri because it allegedly gave fewer wards to them despite having more registered voters and polling units, which they see as biased, unfair, and politically disenfranchising.

Stop fooling around.
One Ijaw man fit born 50 pikin that would be the whole entire Itsekiri in a community in two generations.


Inec delineation na Ijaw or na Urhobo carry am out?
Better grow up.

Please read it to the end, and give concrete response

Toruibestate:
Stop fooling around.
One Ijaw man fit born 50 pikin that would be the whole entire Itsekiri in a community in two generations.


Inec delineation na Ijaw or na Urhobo carry am out?
Better grow up.

Your comment reflects a misunderstanding of the issues at stake. Population growth, while important in political representation, does not erase the weight of constitutional provisions, historical court rulings, or the legal framework guiding INEC’s delineation of constituencies. The process is not about “who can outnumber who,” but about equity, legality, and balance among all ethnic nationalities in Delta State. Serious conversations about representation require facts and law—not dismissive remarks.

Toruibestate:
Stop fooling around.
One Ijaw man fit born 50 pikin that would be the whole entire Itsekiri in a community in two generations.


Inec delineation na Ijaw or na Urhobo carry am out?
Better grow up.

This is mere conjecture and hearsay, it's distasteful and asinine.

It is the exact same dishonest formula that Hausa-Fula have relied on since 1960 in order to manipulate census figures and rig elections

I will be responding to some of the truths and mistruths in your statement.

mimelord:
Why Itsekiri Reject INEC’s Proposed Wards and Polling Units Delineation in Warri Federal Constituency
Constitutional and Political Implications
Omasanjuwa Ogharandukun

The Itsekiri ethnic nationality has formally rejected INEC’s proposed delineation of wards and polling units in Warri Federal Constituency, citing constitutional breaches, electoral injustice, and political imbalance. This analysis explores the legal, political, and historical implications of the controversy.

Warri is not just another city in Nigeria; it is a microcosm of the nation’s most delicate questions—ethnicity, oil politics, and electoral justice. At the heart of the Niger Delta, Warri Federal Constituency carries significant weight in national politics and the Nigerian economy. It is home to the Itsekiri, Ijaw, and Urhobo ethnic groups, all of whom have long contested for political representation, access to resources, and recognition of their place within Nigeria’s federation.

This is true. However, majority of The itsekiris have always argued that Warri federal constituency is the ancestral home of the itsekiri only with their Olu(who is not even from the area nor related to them) as an overlord over the other tribes whose ancestral homes are there and are living in the area also particularly the Urhobos who are the majority in the more urban Warri South and the popular Warri city in particular, and the Ijaw who are in egbeoma in Warri North at the mouth of the Benin river and majority in Warri southwest, the past deputy governor and speaker of the DTHA are from here. These can be seen in their methods of blocking Urhobo or Ijaw on any mainstream political platform for contesting for the Warri federal constituency seat since 1998. Same for the chairmanship seat in Warri South.

Against this backdrop, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conducted a field exercise to review and propose fresh delineations of wards and polling units in Warri South, Warri South-West, and Warri North Local Government Areas. Instead of resolving existing grievances, the exercise sparked a new round of controversy.

The Itsekiri ethnic nationality has rejected the outcome of INEC’s field work, citing violations of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Electoral Act 2022, and INEC’s own guidelines. They argue that the process overreached INEC’s constitutional mandate, created fictitious communities, misplaced polling units across state boundaries, and ultimately undermined the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.

This blogpost provides an authoritative analysis of the issue. It situates the Itsekiri rejection within Nigeria’s constitutional framework, examines historical precedents, and highlights the broader implications for electoral justice, democratic stability, and peace in Warri and beyond.


Section 1: INEC’s Constitutional Mandate

The starting point of any conversation on delineation is the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, particularly Section 114(1), which provides:

“The Independent National Electoral Commission shall review the division of every state into constituencies at intervals of not less than ten years, and may alter such constituencies in accordance with the provisions of this section to such extent as it may consider desirable in the light of the review.”

This provision empowers INEC to periodically review constituencies, wards, and polling units, primarily to ensure fair representation as population figures and settlements evolve.

The Constitution also provides in Section 114(2) that INEC may review constituencies in consequence of:

Alteration of state boundaries, or

The holding of a national census.

Neither of these conditions has occurred in Delta State in recent years. Thus, the only live issue was the periodic review required by Section 114(1).

The Supreme Court judgment in Hon. George Timinimi & Ors v. INEC (SC/143/2016) directed INEC to conduct a fresh delineation of wards and polling units in Warri Federal Constituency. Importantly, the court did not declare existing wards or polling units fictitious, nor did it impugn INEC’s voter register. The judgment merely reinforced the constitutional duty of periodic review.

Therefore, while INEC had the authority to conduct the exercise, the Itsekiri argue that the Commission exceeded its constitutional powers in the manner it carried out the field work.


Section 2: Why the Itsekiri Rejected INEC’s Field Report

According to the Itsekiri leadership, INEC’s field report on Warri’s wards and polling units is fatally flawed. Their objections can be grouped into four main categories:

1. Ultra Vires Acts by INEC

INEC allegedly went beyond its administrative mandate by:

Creating or recognizing communities not officially gazetted.

Attempting to determine ethnic ownership of territories.

Using unofficial population estimates from aerial surveys and Google maps.

Such actions, the Itsekiri argue, amount to administrative overreach. The Constitution does not empower INEC to decide community ownership, redraw ethnic boundaries, or invent new settlements.

2. Misplacement of Polling Units

Survey findings show several polling units placed in impossible or wrong locations:

Warri South-West LGA: 510 polling units listed outside the LGA; one polling unit (TURUFAGBENE PU 289) falls inside Edo State.

Warri North LGA: 99 polling units fall in Ondo and Edo States; some placed in rivers and swamps.

Warri South LGA: PU 16 “Merogun” listed at Deco Road, far from the actual Merogun community.
Warri South is my major concern here as this is where Warri city is. Everyone in Warri city knows where Merogun is so this can be corrected. A case of one polling unit should not destroy the delineation of a whole local government. That of Warri North and Warri southwest can be redone properly.

These errors undermine the credibility of the exercise and raise logistical questions about election-day voting.

3. Violation of Electoral Act 2022

Section 40(2) of the Electoral Act provides:

“The Commission shall establish adequate number of polling units in each registration area or electoral ward and shall allot voters to such polling units.”

The law requires INEC to rely on its voter register—an empirically valid database with biometric data—to determine where polling units should be located. By instead relying on contested maps and unofficial data, INEC violated both the spirit and letter of the Act.

4. Undermining Electoral Integrity

By creating fictitious or misplaced polling units, INEC risks inflating voter access in some areas while disenfranchising others. For the Itsekiri, this is not a neutral mistake but one that skews representation in favor of Ijaw and Urhobo communities, thereby entrenching political injustice.


Section 3: False Claims and Counter-Narratives

At a world press conference, Ijaw and Urhobo groups claimed they were denied electoral representation in Warri Federal Constituency. They described existing delineations as “gerrymandered” against them.

The Itsekiri counter that this narrative is misleading.

Ijaw and Urhobo Political Representation

Warri South-West LGA: Produced the Deputy Governor under Okowa, the current Speaker of the Delta State House of Assembly, and the LGA Chairman—all from Ijaw communities.

Warri North LGA: Former Chairman Hon. Smart Asukutu hailed from Egbema Ijaw.

Warri South LGA: Urhobo politicians have repeatedly occupied one of the two Assembly seats.

What of the Chairman of the LGA? Itsekiri has consistently represented it despite being the minority here as most of their representatives are from the island not even the from Warri city.

By contrast, the Itsekiri point out they have little to no political representation in Urhobo-dominated LGAs such as Sapele and Ethiope-West, or Ijaw strongholds like Burutu.
The population of itsekiris are very small in ehiope West and practically non-existent in Burutu. Name one itsekiri village in Burutu if I may ask? While Urhobo and Ijaw villages occupy the majority population in Warri South and Warri southwest respectively. Despite this no one has stopped them from contesting for positions but they know they don't have the number to win, not even in a single ward. In sapele where their population is admissible as well as those of several foreigners due to early British interest (destruction of nana of ebrohimi sent many of his slaves, Yoruba, ejo and Urhobo to sapele) and establishment, that dispelled many of the indigenous population (just like it happened in Warri, with Dore Numa acting on orders from the British, resetlled Ogbeijoh people residing on land leased to them by the Agbassa in Miller waterside, Robert road area, Ogbeijoh market, San San market and environs to their present location),intermarriage and lots of industries in the area, no one has stopped from representing. Infact Igbos outnumber them in sapele but have not created as much an issue like them .
The African population of Sapele Township in 1952, was 33,638.(35) This is comprised of some 14 tribes with the Ibos leading at 35.6% or more than a third of the total population. The figures in a descending order of magnitude are:-

IBO 11,974
URHOBO 7,657
ITSEKIRI 4,825
EDO 3,335
YORUBA 2,428
ISOKO 831
IJAW 685
HAUSA 615
IBIBIO 333
NUPE 78
TIV 37
FULANI 20
OTHER NIGERIAN TRIBES 646
NON-NIGERIANS 174


The Gerrymandering Argument

The claim that Warri’s delineation has historically disadvantaged Ijaw and Urhobo does not align with past records. In fact, the 1999 adjustment reduced Itsekiri Federal Constituencies from two to one, transferring a seat to the less-populated Burutu Ijaw. This remains a source of grievance for the Itsekiri, not their neighbors.
This is true. Warri is far bigger than Burutu federal constituency, both in population and size. I think the solution will be to extract the Ijaw areas of Warri southwest and north and add them to Burutu federal constituency. While making the Urhobos in Warri township with those of uvwie another federal constituency.

Section 4: Historical Context of Warri’s Delineation

To understand the controversy, one must revisit the evolution of Warri’s electoral map:

1992 Delineation: Warri had two Federal Constituencies (both occupied by Itsekiri) and four State Assembly Constituencies. Warri South had 10 wards (7 Itsekiri, 3 Urhobo), Warri North 10 wards (6 Itsekiri, 4 Ijaw).
Imagine Urhobos having 3 constituencies to itsekiris in Warri South then, was it justifiable with the realities on ground of the time?

1996 LGA Creation: Warri South-West was carved out of Warri North, producing 6 wards for Itsekiri and 4 for Ijaw.
WSW has always been 6 for Ijaw, 4 for itsekiri. The opposite was obtainable in Warri North while it was equal in Warri South between Urhobo and itsekiri

1999 Review: INEC reduced Federal Constituencies from two to one, removing one from Itsekiri and awarding it to Ijaw of Burutu.

Each adjustment chipped away at Itsekiri representation, leaving them with fewer voices in Abuja despite being the demographic majority in the three Warri LGAs.
Itsekiris are not the demographic majority in Warri, we both know this. Despite all the claim they use to claim other people's children, itsekiri people will tell you as long as you have itsekiri blood in your veins, you are one of them. If we use population of those indigenous to Warri federal constituency only, they are not the majority. If we use, the population of those residing in Warri federal constituency, they are still not the majority. Even INEC knows this but that is not their jurisdiction agreed.


Section 5: The Warri Crisis and Misrepresentation

Ijaw and Urhobo spokesmen often claim the 1997–2003 Warri crises were caused by electoral imbalance. The Itsekiri reject this narrative.

The real flashpoint, they argue, was the relocation of Warri South-West LGA headquarters. Officially gazetted at Ogidigben (an Itsekiri area), it was illegally moved to Ogbe-Ijaw by state authorities. This unilateral move sparked violent conflicts, which escalated into what the Itsekiri describe as an attempted genocide against their people.
This is the real story, Warri southwest was created because of the long distance for those in the Ijaw southern part of the area to get to their local government headquarters up north at Koko. To do these, they usually had to pass about 5 other local government/headquarters, udu, Ughelli south, uvwie, Warri South and sapele before getting there. This LGA was made for them with headquarters at Ogbeijoh were most of them reside in only for them to announce overnight that the headquarters will be at ogidigben, an itsekiri community near Warri North.

Linking the crisis to INEC delineation, therefore, is historically inaccurate and politically manipulative.


Section 6: Technical Review of INEC’s 2025 Field Report

Independent surveyors commissioned by the Itsekiri conducted a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of INEC’s coordinates. Their findings:

Warri South-West: Out of 1,287 polling units, 510 lie outside the LGA. One even falls inside Edo State.

Warri North: 99 polling units mapped into Ondo and Edo States. Some polling units located in uninhabitable swamps or rivers.

Warri South: Several polling units misplaced, with names not matching their actual locations.
I don't stand for this. If true, then the ward delineation should be properly done to expose the truth. Truth/judgement gotten by proxy will not stand, that is why the itsekiris claim to everything in Warri federal constituency is falling on its feet today. The ijaws via Tompolo and others should not attempt to do same else, it will continue the crisis. Injustice is not the solution to injustice. Lastly your link is not opening.I rest my case.

WhizdomXX:
I will be responding to some of the truths and mistruths in your statement.

Thank you for taking the time to engage with my analysis in such detail. It’s clear you feel strongly about the historical and political questions surrounding Warri Federal Constituency, and I respect the opportunity for dialogue. That said, I think it’s important we separate sentiment, historical grievances, and assumptions from the actual constitutional and legal questions that the INEC delineation exercise has raised.

First, the heart of the Itsekiri objection is not about “claiming ownership” of Warri or denying the presence of Ijaw or Urhobo communities. It is about whether INEC, in carrying out the Supreme Court’s directive, complied with the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2022, and its own internal guidelines. When polling units are found in rivers, in bushes, or even outside Delta State altogether, that is not an ethnic issue—it is a technical, legal, and administrative failure. No community benefits from flawed delineation, because flawed processes undermine electoral integrity for all.

Second, political representation cannot be judged solely on population narratives. Nigeria’s system is not a crude census democracy—it is guided by constitutional balance. The same framework that allows smaller ethnic nationalities in other parts of the country to maintain representation is what the Itsekiri are invoking here. INEC has no mandate to create fictitious communities, redraw ethnic boundaries, or use aerial maps in place of the voter register. Those are not Itsekiri arguments—they are constitutional facts.

Third, I acknowledge your points about historical displacements, migrations, and intermarriages in places like Sapele or Warri. These are complex realities of our shared Niger Delta history. But those sociological realities cannot override the legal basis on which delineation must stand. As I stressed in the blogpost, this is bigger than ethnicity—it is about building trust in Nigeria’s electoral process, which affects Urhobo, Ijaw, and Itsekiri alike.

Finally, I agree with you on one key point: injustice cannot be corrected by another round of injustice. If INEC’s fieldwork was riddled with errors, the solution is not to accept those errors simply because they appear to favor one group today. It is to insist on a transparent, lawful, and technically sound delineation exercise that can stand the test of time and prevent further conflict.

At the end of the day, all three ethnic groups in Warri Federal Constituency have legitimate aspirations. But those aspirations must be pursued within the guardrails of law and fairness. That is the only way Warri—and Nigeria at large—can move from cycles of suspicion to genuine stability.

Why's INEC still wasting time on this issue?

mimelord:
Thank you for taking the time to engage with my analysis in such detail. It’s clear you feel strongly about the historical and political questions surrounding Warri Federal Constituency, and I respect the opportunity for dialogue. That said, I think it’s important we separate sentiment, historical grievances, and assumptions from the actual constitutional and legal questions that the INEC delineation exercise has raised.

First, the heart of the Itsekiri objection is not about “claiming ownership” of Warri or denying the presence of Ijaw or Urhobo communities. It is about whether INEC, in carrying out the Supreme Court’s directive, complied with the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2022, and its own internal guidelines. When polling units are found in rivers, in bushes, or even outside Delta State altogether, that is not an ethnic issue—it is a technical, legal, and administrative failure. No community benefits from flawed delineation, because flawed processes undermine electoral integrity for all.

Second, political representation cannot be judged solely on population narratives. Nigeria’s system is not a crude census democracy—it is guided by constitutional balance. The same framework that allows smaller ethnic nationalities in other parts of the country to maintain representation is what the Itsekiri are invoking here. INEC has no mandate to create fictitious communities, redraw ethnic boundaries, or use aerial maps in place of the voter register. Those are not Itsekiri arguments—they are constitutional facts.

Third, I acknowledge your points about historical displacements, migrations, and intermarriages in places like Sapele or Warri. These are complex realities of our shared Niger Delta history. But those sociological realities cannot override the legal basis on which delineation must stand. As I stressed in the blogpost, this is bigger than ethnicity—it is about building trust in Nigeria’s electoral process, which affects Urhobo, Ijaw, and Itsekiri alike.

Finally, I agree with you on one key point: injustice cannot be corrected by another round of injustice. If INEC’s fieldwork was riddled with errors, the solution is not to accept those errors simply because they appear to favor one group today. It is to insist on a transparent, lawful, and technically sound delineation exercise that can stand the test of time and prevent further conflict.

At the end of the day, all three ethnic groups in Warri Federal Constituency have legitimate aspirations. But those aspirations must be pursued within the guardrails of law and fairness. That is the only way Warri—and Nigeria at large—can move from cycles of suspicion to genuine stability.

Great. So any response from INEC on the inconsistencies in the delineation?