₦airaland Forum

The lkwerre ethnic nationality in rivers state believes that only historical evidence based on truth can correct certain wrong assumptions and baseless claims emanating from certain quarters over the ownership of iguocha or modern day Port Harcourt. The historic development of iguocha later renamed port Harcourt has evidently suffered unimaginable distortions and outright falsification at the hands of some elements bereft of a sense of history. And that is why we now feel strongly in our belief that the time has come to put the incontestable fact's of the matter on record, if only to enlighten the discerning public and correct some half- truths, concoctions ,shameless fabrications and outright disinformation that have most regrettable replaced inexorable truths of the matter. Iguocha (now Port Harcourt) was surveyed in 1910 and acquired in 1913 by agents of the British colonial government, following series of agreements with Diobu (Rebisi) people who remain it's bonafide owners based on incontrovertible historical, culture, socio- anthropological and even spiritual grounds. While the survey plan (chart) designated the northern parts of the city as Diobu residential areas, the southern or old township areas were officially mapped out and shaded as '' Diobu farmlands'' and Creeks. Our Okrika neighbours on the other side of the Creek were, never in history, recognized or even treated as co-owners of the expanse of 25 square miles of land then called Obomotu. Parts of the old township areas of this land were earmarked for the sitting of facilities like the Eastern railway terminus and the Port itself. Available records in the British archives in London (which can still be cross- checked by anyone in doubt). Show that the city was named after the Right honourable Sir Lewis Harcourt who was secretary of state at the time of the acquisition in 1913. The same incontestable records prove that in the first progress report on the railway- eastern line dated 22nd May, 1914, the governor of southern Nigeria Sir Frederick D.Lugard, in continuation of his dispatch No.103 to the colonial office in London had this revelation to make on paragraph 10; about who really owns Port Harcourt.'' I have already steps to acquire the land before fictitious claims and artificial inflation of values should have increased the difficulty of acquisition. The occupiers belong to a single named '' Diobu ''. It is worthy of note at this point that Lord Lugard and Lt.H.R.W.Hughes who produced the charts of the estuaries and rivers of the new city, were both cognizant of the settlement of Okrika people on the other side of the Creek, yet did not mentioned them as either sole or co- owners of any inch of the whole 25 square miles of territory now known as Port Harcourt. Again in his dispatch of 18th August 1913, Lugard left no one in doubt pertaining to sole ownership of Port Harcourt. Said he: '' I have the honour to enclose for your information charts of the estuaries and rivers in the neighborhood of the proposed Port Harcourt and terminus of the eastern railway at Diobu or more correctly iguocha ( '' the high cliffs'')(our emphasis). Lugard may not have ever remotely anticipated that he was opening up Diobu land to spurious claims and emotional attachment by our Okrika neighbours when he proposed a name for the city in the same dispatch; '' in the absence of a convenient local name, I would respectfully ask your permission to call this Port Harcourt.... In the future, it will be one of the most important port on the coast of West Africa''. How prophetic Lugard was, but how unjust the colonial governor also was in not allowing the Port city to retain it's original name of iguocha or even Obomotu? Sir Lugard again added; '' steps are being taken to provide at once the necessary buoys for the channel at an estimated cost of 1,000, and to remove the shoal at iguocha at a cost of 300 ( pounds sterling) ''. It must also be place on record that in accepting the now wrongheaded proposal for a change of name of the city from iguocha to Port Harcourt, the then secretary of state, the right honourable Sir Lewis Harcourt was modest enough to ask that some method may be found of marking it publicly known ( especially to the colonial office in London) that the change of name was not suggested by himself as an immodest mark of self - effacement. Rather Sir Harcourt insisted on reflecting the used of his name as an express request of sir Lugard himself. This incident is documented to have taken place on August 22,1913. The lkwerre ethnic nationality therefore wishes to state very unequivocally here that before the acquisition of 1913, the old government residential areas (GRA), the mercantile area, including the BOP, the main Port itself, the railway terminus and the old part of the town were all, and still remain within the original 25 miles square area known officially then as iguocha (and now as Port Harcourt). These documented facts are confirmed in several official letters, dispatches, minutes and even on receipts ironically issued then by Okrika chiefs themselves. Some of the documents referred to in the form of minutes, letters, requests, documents, maps and dispatches are still available to reinforce Diobu ownership of the entire Port Harcourt, both root and branch. It is equally revealing that in none of these documents was it ever suggested or represented that the land comprised in the said 25 square miles was ever known by any name different from'' iguocha'' or Obomotu''. Nor was it ever represented that any land belonging to Okrika was called' iguocha, or Obomotu. The Okrika people have always remained the customary tenants of Diobu (Rebisi)landlords as a result of trading and fishing along the Creeks and the rivers that naturally separate the two communities. Our Okrika neighbours cannot therefore lay any claim or association with the name Port Harcourt in any material particular. His Royal Highness Eze S.N. Woluchem is the Paramount ruler of the whole of Port Harcourt and the government recognized first class traditional ruler of Port Harcourt. His recognition was based on a duly constituted commission of enquiry under the chairmanship of an acclaimed historian, in the person of prof.Tekena Tamuno.He had ad his vice chairman an equally great historian by name prof.E.J.Allagoa.prof Tekena Tamuno is an Okrika man and prof.E.J.Allagoa is from Brass local government. No single Diobu or lkwerre man served on the panel when HRH S N Woluchem( an ikwerre man from Rebisi was unanimously recognized as the traditional/ Paramount ruler of Port Harcourt who was once chairman of rivers state council of traditional rulers. Chief Okogbule Wonodi ( a Rebisi man )was also unanimously elected to represent port Harcourt at on- going constitutional conference. Okrika indigenes who reside on the eastern side of the plan annexed to the 1913 agreement in what is known as'' Okrika villages'' live there merely as customary tenants to the Diobu landlords. This has been affirmed in the records of the proceedings and the judgment in suit No.P/107/67. Suit No. P46/66 and recently by the supreme court judgment in suit No. SC/23/80 and reported in 1981/5SC at pages 291 - 331. Based on the above facts , therefore, the youth forum sternly condemns the new political geometry over port Harcourt in respect of a so called'' Diobu'' and Okrika'' sections of Rebisi territory. We called on the Head of state, General Sani Abacha to create a Port Harcourt state from the present rivers state comprising the 12 local government areas in the old Port Harcourt province, as a way of dousing the tension in the air.Degema and Yenagoa should also be carved out as new states using the same provincial parameters which have been applied since 1967.We want to also state unequivocally that contrary to few dissenting voices the rivers state on August 25 ,1994 staunchly agreed on splitting river state three along old provincial boundaries. This is the whole documented truth about the historical origin, name and ownership of iguocha or modern day Port Harcourt. Other claims in the light of the above irrefutable facts are mere clever fabrication by people who cannot back up their statement with concrete facts as provided above. If Okrika people wish to become part of a proposed Port Harcourt state, they are welcome aboard provided they recognize their status in Rebisi land. Port Harcourt (iguocha) bears our blood by virtue of our ancestral settlement and it must therefore bear our will no matter the stakes. Ikwerre ethnic nationality will reject and vehemently resist any contrivance under any flag of convenience to balkanize port Harcourt to pacify any group in the event of state creation. Our ancestors owned iguocha in anterior times. We own port Harcourt in modern times and our children will certainly inherit this city when we are no more, no matter the odds. The disastrous consequences of Balkanizing port Harcourt into a so called'' Diobu'' and '' Okrika'' sections would be too high to contemplates on all sides. The ikwerre are a peace loving race, and we have proved our peace credentials in many ways in the past. Now, we will resist to the last man ! We have warned, so be wares.this statement is credited to ikwerre youth movement in 1994

I totally agree with this incontrovertible verifiable historical statement of facts about ownership of Port Harcourt. Any body in doubt should please consult the booklet "The Port Harcourt Question " with details of the history of acquisition of Port Harcourt in 1913. Port Harcourt or Igwuocha "high cliff" has a map with 3 clear sections namely Diobu villages that are still in existence no 2 Diobu farm which is the township including Borokiri to the water side. Inside Diobu farm were two separate Red Mark's indicating the positions of the wharf harbour and the railway. No 3 part of the map at the TransAmadi section has Okrika villages. A separate map 17 enumerated the Okrika villages as Abuloma, Amadiama, Okuruama, Fimie etc. These were settlers on Rebisi land as was declared later by judgement of Lower court, Appeal court and supreme court which declared that these Okrika villages were customary tenants of Rebisi people. These judgements were based on historical incontrovertible and verifiable evidence and facts.Among one of the letters from Lord Lugard to Harcourt the Secretary of the
Colony he said of having acquired a 25 square mile land from a single village known as Diobu. Note the letter ""SIngle village known as Diobu.These facts and evidence were before the various hence the judgments that the Okrika villages were and are still customary tenants of Rebisi people. These are verifiable facts still in the colonial archives in the British Home office.

The lkwerre ethnic nationality in rivers state believes that only historical evidence based on truth can correct certain wrong assumptions and baseless claims emanating from certain quarters over the ownership of iguocha or modern day Port Harcourt. The historic development of iguocha later renamed port Harcourt has evidently suffered unimaginable distortions and outright falsification at the hands of some elements bereft of a sense of history. And that is why we now feel strongly in our belief that the time has come to put the incontestable fact's of the matter on record, if only to enlighten the discerning public and correct some half- truths, concoctions ,shameless fabrications and outright disinformation that have most regrettable replaced inexorable truths of the matter. Iguocha (now Port Harcourt) was surveyed in 1910 and acquired in 1913 by agents of the British colonial government, following series of agreements with Diobu (Rebisi) people who remain it's bonafide owners based on incontrovertible historical, culture, socio- anthropological and even spiritual grounds. While the survey plan (chart) designated the northern parts of the city as Diobu residential areas, the southern or old township areas were officially mapped out and shaded as '' Diobu farmlands'' and Creeks. Our Okrika neighbours on the other side of the Creek were, never in history, recognized or even treated as co-owners of the expanse of 25 square miles of land then called Obomotu. Parts of the old township areas of this land were earmarked for the sitting of facilities like the Eastern railway terminus and the Port itself. Available records in the British archives in London (which can still be cross- checked by anyone in doubt). Show that the city was named after the Right honourable Sir Lewis Harcourt who was secretary of state at the time of the acquisition in 1913. The same incontestable records prove that in the first progress report on the railway- eastern line dated 22nd May, 1914, the governor of southern Nigeria Sir Frederick D.Lugard, in continuation of his dispatch No.103 to the colonial office in London had this revelation to make on paragraph 10; about who really owns Port Harcourt.'' I have already steps to acquire the land before fictitious claims and artificial inflation of values should have increased the difficulty of acquisition. The occupiers belong to a single named '' Diobu ''. It is worthy of note at this point that Lord Lugard and Lt.H.R.W.Hughes who produced the charts of the estuaries and rivers of the new city, were both cognizant of the settlement of Okrika people on the other side of the Creek, yet did not mentioned them as either sole or co- owners of any inch of the whole 25 square miles of territory now known as Port Harcourt. Again in his dispatch of 18th August 1913, Lugard left no one in doubt pertaining to sole ownership of Port Harcourt. Said he: '' I have the honour to enclose for your information charts of the estuaries and rivers in the neighborhood of the proposed Port Harcourt and terminus of the eastern railway at Diobu or more correctly iguocha ( '' the high cliffs'')(our emphasis). Lugard may not have ever remotely anticipated that he was opening up Diobu land to spurious claims and emotional attachment by our Okrika neighbours when he proposed a name for the city in the same dispatch; '' in the absence of a convenient local name, I would respectfully ask your permission to call this Port Harcourt.... In the future, it will be one of the most important port on the coast of West Africa''. How prophetic Lugard was, but how unjust the colonial governor also was in not allowing the Port city to retain it's original name of iguocha or even Obomotu? Sir Lugard again added; '' steps are being taken to provide at once the necessary buoys for the channel at an estimated cost of 1,000, and to remove the shoal at iguocha at a cost of 300 ( pounds sterling) ''. It must also be place on record that in accepting the now wrongheaded proposal for a change of name of the city from iguocha to Port Harcourt, the then secretary of state, the right honourable Sir Lewis Harcourt was modest enough to ask that some method may be found of marking it publicly known ( especially to the colonial office in London) that the change of name was not suggested by himself as an immodest mark of self - effacement. Rather Sir Harcourt insisted on reflecting the used of his name as an express request of sir Lugard himself. This incident is documented to have taken place on August 22,1913. The lkwerre ethnic nationality therefore wishes to state very unequivocally here that before the acquisition of 1913, the old government residential areas (GRA), the mercantile area, including the BOP, the main Port itself, the railway terminus and the old part of the town were all, and still remain within the original 25 miles square area known officially then as iguocha (and now as Port Harcourt). These documented facts are confirmed in several official letters, dispatches, minutes and even on receipts ironically issued then by Okrika chiefs themselves. Some of the documents referred to in the form of minutes, letters, requests, documents, maps and dispatches are still available to reinforce Diobu ownership of the entire Port Harcourt, both root and branch. It is equally revealing that in none of these documents was it ever suggested or represented that the land comprised in the said 25 square miles was ever known by any name different from'' iguocha'' or Obomotu''. Nor was it ever represented that any land belonging to Okrika was called' iguocha, or Obomotu. The Okrika people have always remained the customary tenants of Diobu (Rebisi)landlords as a result of trading and fishing along the Creeks and the rivers that naturally separate the two communities. Our Okrika neighbours cannot therefore lay any claim or association with the name Port Harcourt in any material particular. His Royal Highness Eze S.N. Woluchem is the Paramount ruler of the whole of Port Harcourt and the government recognized first class traditional ruler of Port Harcourt. His recognition was based on a duly constituted commission of enquiry under the chairmanship of an acclaimed historian, in the person of prof.Tekena Tamuno.He had ad his vice chairman an equally great historian by name prof.E.J.Allagoa.prof Tekena Tamuno is an Okrika man and prof.E.J.Allagoa is from Brass local government. No single Diobu or lkwerre man served on the panel when HRH S N Woluchem( an ikwerre man from Rebisi was unanimously recognized as the traditional/ Paramount ruler of Port Harcourt who was once chairman of rivers state council of traditional rulers. Chief Okogbule Wonodi ( a Rebisi man )was also unanimously elected to represent port Harcourt at on- going constitutional conference. Okrika indigenes who reside on the eastern side of the plan annexed to the 1913 agreement in what is known as'' Okrika villages'' live there merely as customary tenants to the Diobu landlords. This has been affirmed in the records of the proceedings and the judgment in suit No.P/107/67. Suit No. P46/66 and recently by the supreme court judgment in suit No. SC/23/80 and reported in 1981/5SC at pages 291 - 331. Based on the above facts , therefore, the youth forum sternly condemns the new political geometry over port Harcourt in respect of a so called'' Diobu'' and Okrika'' sections of Rebisi territory. We called on the Head of state, General Sani Abacha to create a Port Harcourt state from the present rivers state comprising the 12 local government areas in the old Port Harcourt province, as a way of dousing the tension in the air.Degema and Yenagoa should also be carved out as new states using the same provincial parameters which have been applied since 1967.We want to also state unequivocally that contrary to few dissenting voices the rivers state on August 25 ,1994 staunchly agreed on splitting river state three along old provincial boundaries. This is the whole documented truth about the historical origin, name and ownership of iguocha or modern day Port Harcourt. Other claims in the light of the above irrefutable facts are mere clever fabrication by people who cannot back up their statement with concrete facts as provided above. If Okrika people wish to become part of a proposed Port Harcourt state, they are welcome aboard provided they recognize their status in Rebisi land. Port Harcourt (iguocha) bears our blood by virtue of our ancestral settlement and it must therefore bear our will no matter the stakes. Ikwerre ethnic nationality will reject and vehemently resist any contrivance under any flag of convenience to balkanize port Harcourt to pacify any group in the event of state creation. Our ancestors owned iguocha in anterior times. We own port Harcourt in modern times and our children will certainly inherit this city when we are no more, no matter the odds. The disastrous consequences of Balkanizing port Harcourt into a so called'' Diobu'' and '' Okrika'' sections would be too high to contemplates on all sides. The ikwerre are a peace loving race, and we have proved our peace credentials in many ways in the past. Now, we will resist to the last man ! We have warned, so be wares.this statement is credited to ikwerre youth movement in 1994

I totally agree with this incontrovertible verifiable historical statement of facts about ownership of Port Harcourt. Any body in doubt should please consult the booklet "The Port Harcourt Question " with details of the history of acquisition of Port Harcourt in 1913. Port Harcourt or Igwuocha "high cliff" has a map with 3 clear sections namely Diobu villages that are still in existence no 2 Diobu farm which is the township including Borokiri to the water side. Inside Diobu farm were two separate Red Mark's indicating the positions of the wharf harbour and the railway. No 3 part of the map at the TransAmadi section has Okrika villages. A separate map 17 enumerated the Okrika villages as Abuloma, Amadiama, Okuruama, Fimie etc. These were settlers on Rebisi land as was declared later by judgement of Lower court, Appeal court and supreme court which declared that these Okrika villages were customary tenants of Rebisi people. These judgements were based on historical incontrovertible and verifiable evidence and facts.Among one of the letters from Lord Lugard to Harcourt the Secretary of the
Colony he said of having acquired a 25 square mile land from a single village known as Diobu. Note the letter ""SIngle village known as Diobu.These facts and evidence were before the various hence the judgments that the Okrika villages were and are still customary tenants of Rebisi people. These are verifiable facts still in the colonial archives in the British Home office.