The political calculation that turned brothers into separate identities

By Mathias Efe Olowu

The history of the Niger Delta contains many episodes in which politics, population, territory and the struggle for representation shaped relationships among neighbouring communities.

One of the most intriguing—and potentially controversial—is the historical relationship between the Isoko and Urhobo peoples and the circumstances that contributed to the emergence of increasingly distinct political identities.

At a conference of the Urhobo Historical Society held at the PTI Conference Centre, Effurun, around 2003, the late Chief Otobo of Uzere reportedly offered an illuminating account of the political circumstances surrounding the separation of Isoko from the broader Urhobo political identity.

According to Chief Otobo, during the era of the old Midwest Region and subsequently Bendel State, Urhobo and Isoko communities were situated within a political arrangement that gave them considerable combined demographic and political strength.

He reportedly argued that the Itsekiri population at the time was significantly smaller than that of the Isoko people, yet there was a strong demand for political representation and recognition.

This, in his account, created a political dilemma for sections of the Urhobo political leadership.

Chief Otobo’s version of events was that some Urhobo leaders consequently adopted a strategy of emphasising that Isoko should be regarded as a distinct people rather than being counted as part of the Urhobo population.

The calculation, as he explained it, was essentially political.

By treating Isoko and Urhobo as separate populations, the combined numerical strength of the two groups would not necessarily become a single political bloc in contests over representation and political influence involving the Urhobo and Itsekiri.

Whether every detail of this account can withstand historical scrutiny is a matter for further archival research. But the narrative raises an important question about how political calculations can influence the evolution of ethnic identities.

WHEN POLITICS BECOMES IDENTITY

Political strategies are often designed to address immediate circumstances. Identity, however, can survive long after the political circumstances that produced or encouraged it have disappeared.

This is perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Chief Otobo’s account.

What may have begun, according to his recollection, as a political strategy eventually developed into a much broader question of ethnic identity, history and cultural consciousness.

Over subsequent generations, Isoko increasingly came to be recognised politically and socially as a distinct ethnic identity.

For many Isoko people today, that identity is neither artificial nor negotiable. It is a legitimate expression of their history, culture, language and collective consciousness.

At the same time, recognising Isoko as a distinct identity does not necessarily require denying historical, cultural or linguistic connections with the Urhobo.

This distinction is important.

Two peoples can have a shared history while maintaining separate identities.

THE POLITICS OF DIVISION

The history of the Niger Delta demonstrates repeatedly that political boundaries and ethnic identities have not always developed independently of one another.

Colonial administrative arrangements, regional politics, population figures, representation, local government creation, electoral calculations and struggles over economic resources have all influenced relationships among communities.

The Isoko-Urhobo question therefore deserves to be examined within this broader historical context.

It should not become a contest in which one people must prove the existence of the other.

Nor should historical connections be used to invalidate a people’s right to define itself.

The Isoko people have every right to embrace and defend their distinct identity.

Likewise, Urhobo people have every right to preserve their own identity and historical narratives.

The challenge is ensuring that ethnic distinction does not become a justification for historical denial or hostility.

HISTORY MUST NOT BECOME A WEAPON

The account attributed to the late Chief Otobo of Uzere deserves scholarly attention because it raises questions about the relationship between political strategy and ethnic consciousness in the old Midwest Region and Bendel State.

But oral testimony should be treated as a starting point for investigation rather than the final word on history.

Researchers should examine archival records, colonial administrative documents, census reports, political correspondence, parliamentary debates, traditional histories and contemporary accounts to determine how Isoko and Urhobo identities were represented at different periods.

Such research could help answer an important question:

To what extent did political calculations influence the consolidation of separate Isoko and Urhobo identities?

That question should be approached without prejudice.

If yesterday’s political circumstances contributed to the strengthening of separate identities, today’s generation should have the courage to study that history objectively.

The Isoko people should not be demonised for embracing their identity.

The Urhobo should not be demonised for acknowledging historical connections with Isoko.

And neither people should be compelled to surrender their identity because of arguments about historical ancestry.

BEYOND THE POLITICS OF DIVISION

History should unite rather than permanently divide.

People can acknowledge common ancestry, linguistic relationships, cultural exchanges and historical interactions while maintaining distinct ethnic identities.

Indeed, maturity requires recognising that identity is not necessarily a zero-sum game.

Let Isoko be Isoko. Let Urhobo be Urhobo.

But let neither identity become an excuse to deny history, erase cultural connections or promote hostility.

The task before the present generation is not to reopen old political battles but to understand them.

For when politics creates boundaries, history must help society understand them.

And when political calculations become permanent identities, scholarship must ask how, why and when the transformation occurred.

The Niger Delta deserves that honest conversation.

Mathias Efe Olowu is a Fellow of the International Institute of Journalism and Publisher of Abuja PM News.