River State Political Conundrum: Political, not Legal Solution (part 1) – Richard Akinnola

A year ago or thereabouts, in one of my interventions on the political crisis in Rivers state, l posited that despite a flurry of litigations, the crisis would not be solved judicially but politically. My position then, which l still maintain, is that whichever of the parties that eventually becomes victorious in court, would amount to a Pyrrhic victory. Due to my familiarity with the peculiar nature of the politics of the state, you may win the battle but not the war and you may win war but not the peace.

I start with the 86-year-old communal fight between the Umuleris and Aguleris which ended at the Supreme Court in 1984. Though, Umuleri won but the Supreme court, in its wisdom, declared “no victor, no vanquished.

The dust of 1898 armed land clashes between two Anambra State communities ended at the Supreme Court in Lagos in 1984.

But there was no victor, no vanquished.

Caught in the 86-year-old communal strife were two communities Umuleri and Aguleri.

Their quarrel dated from June 25, 1898 when the Umuleri community made a land grant to the Royal Niger Company in 1910, the Umuleris made another grant to the people of Umuoba Anam, who sought to re- settle on it following their migration from their ancestral home across the Anambra River.

The feathers of trouble began to fly when the Umuoba Anam developed the land and they were challenged by a third group, the Aguleris who claimed ownership of the land.

The contention eventually caused armed clashes between the Umuleris and the Aguleris.

In 1933, the Umuleris sued Aguleri people (Suit No. 2 of 1933 in Onitsha Provincial Court) before the British District Officer (DO) of the area at that time, Captain O’Conor. The Umuleris won.

This elicited the following litigations:

• 1933 (Suit No. 0/85/1935 before Justice Waddinton) filed by the Aguleris. The Umuleris lost
• 1950 (Suit No.0/48/50 at Onitsha High Court before Justice Hurley). It was filed by the Umuleris. They lost again.
• 1955, Umuleris appealed before the West Africa Court of Appeal (WACA) (Suit No. WACA 266/55)
• 1958, the Umuleris appealed to Britain’s Judicial committee of the Privy Council, then Nigeria’s highest court (Suit No. OC 4/58). They won.

• 1975, (Suit No. 0/98/75) after the Supreme Court had become Nigeria’s highest court, Aguleri community again sued at Onitsha High Court before Mr Justice Umeziwa, but lost.
• 1978, (Suit No. FCA/E 231/78, Aguleri community appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, Enugu and won.
• 1982 (Suit No. S.C./65/82), the people of Umuleri appealed to the Supreme Court. They won.

In all, there were eight cases. Umuleri won three, including the 1984 final verdict, and lost five.

In his briefs before the Supreme Court, Chief. Rotimi Williams, SAN for the Umuleris posed this winning question:

“Whether there were any (or any adequate) grounds upon which it was justifiable for the Federal Court of appeal to reverse the findings of the High Court judge (based on the oral evidence together with the history of the numerous litigations between the two parties) that neither of the two parties could lay claims to the exclusive ownership of the land in dispute.”

He submitted that Mr. Justice Jide Olatawura (JCA as he then was) “was in error in thinking that the land occupied by the two separate communities may not belong to either of them. See Okorie Vs. Udom (1960) Vol. 5 FSC Report page 162”.

Chief Williams also disagreed with the view of Mr. Justice Alfa Belgore (JCA as he then was) in failing to take full of sufficient account of one of the exhibits and the evidence of Mr. Theophilus Joh, who testified that:

“I am a civil engineer and licensed surveyor. I know the defendant. I remember the 1950 case between Umuleri and Aguleri, I made a plan of the land in dispute for Umuleri people. I visited the land. That was my second visit of the land. I had earlier visited it in 1935.

“I saw all the features I put on the plan. Features were shown to me by Umuleri people. The area verged yellow represents the area incised from the government out of the area leased by the government measuring 1,000 yards in land from the Anambra River, stretching along the river for about 2,500 yards. The lease was from Umuleri people.

“At the time I visited, the Umuleri people showed me a copy of a gazette. I was shown a copy of the lease agreement. The lease was between the Umuleri people and the Royal Niger Company. The lease was in respect of Otuocha Umuleri.

“The lease confirmed a sketch attached to it. As a result of what Umuleri people showed me. I produced the plan (Exhibit D) and showed the area verged pink.

“I also showed the area verged green as the Otuocha Umuleri land claimed the the plaintiff in the 1950 case.

The area shows concentration of buildings. The buildings belong to Umuleri and Umoba people. I also showed the concentration of Aguleri buildings.

“I saw first defendant’s house and showed it on the plan. I showed the C.M.S. Church and school in Umuleri settlement. I showed the Hausas and Ijaw settlements where I saw them. The plan was made in 1951.”

Chief Williams submitted further that the oral and documentary evidence in the case showed that the Umuleris were in the lawful possession of substantial portion of the land in dispute.

“In the circumstances, it is grossly erroneous for the Federal Court of Appeal to have decreed declaration of title to the land in favour of the plaintiff (Aguleris). Such a declaration cannot stand in the face of the previous decisions of the courts and the oral evidence”, Chief Williams contended.

In his submission, Mr. George Okafor for the Aguleris, said the appeal should fail because the Umuleris were never given exclusive right of ownership of the land.

He said in the 1950 judgment, the court found that although the people of Umuleri gave part of the disputed area to the Royal Niger Company, they never established that they were the owners of the area.

He contended that his clients (Aguleri) had established ownership title by the continuous grant of lease to companies and institutions that occupied some portion of the area.

He therefore urged the court to impose an injunction on the Umuleris to stay away from those areas “since they had not established ownership.”

Reading their unanimous judgment, Mr. Justice Andrew Obaseki said the Aguleris must rely on the strength of their own case and not the weakness of the Umuleris.

“The onus is on the plaintiff (Aguleris) to prove ownership,” he said.

Mr. Justice Obaseki held that before Aguleris could get a declaration of ownership in their favour, they had to show evidence of exclusive ownership.

He said the Respondents (Aguleris) has failed to prove that the appellants (Umuleris) are strangers in the land. The Court of Appeal misdirected itself by coming to its erroneous decision that the land belongs to Aguleris. The appeal succeeds.

The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is hereby set aside. Respondents (Aguleris) to pay N300 costs to appellant (Umuleris).”

Mr. Justice Obaseki, however, admonished the two communities to “live in peace and harmony, now that neither of them are exclusive owners of the land.”

Adopting the verdict of Mr. Justie Obaseki. Mr. Justice Ayo Irikefe (presiding) said: “they should start living in harmony. That’s the essence of the judgment. You have lived for over a century. You should not start fighting and attacking each other. You should live in peace since none of you could lay claim to exclusive possession of the land. I allow the appeal and adopt the order of cost by my learned brother Obaseki J.S.C.”

Mohammed Bello: “I agree with the judgment of my brother Obaseki J.S.C. Nobody could declare exclusive ownership of the land.”

Kayode Eso: Neither of them has exclusive ownership of the land, They should live in peace. I agree entirely with the reasoning of my learned brother Obaseki JSC and I allow the appeal and order of costs.”

“I hope that after 60 years of litigation, they should now seek a spirit of harmony.”

However, up until 2021, the two communities were still up in arms against each other, leading to several loss of lives, which further exemplifies my position that you can win the battle but not the war. Winning the war means letting go of ego in the spirit of give and take in the overall interests.

(To be continued)