The centuries-old question of identity has once again sparked intense debate in Delta State, following a renewed push by some Okpe elites and cultural organizations for the formal recognition of Okpe as a distinct ethnic nationality separate from Urhobo. What began as a historical reassertion by the Okpe Union has escalated into a fiery exchange of rebuttals, accusations, and deeply personal reflections across political, academic, and cultural circles.
At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: Is Okpe a sub-group of the Urhobo Nation, or is it a separate ethnic group with a unique history, language, and cultural heritage?
In a detailed memorandum submitted to the Delta State Government, the Okpe Union, led by Prof. Igho Natufe and Akpederin Kingsley, made a compelling historical and constitutional case for the recognition of Okpe as an independent ethnic group.
The submission traces the roots of the Okpe people to the Benin Kingdom, arguing that the Okpe Kingdom was founded by Prince Okpe, a descendant of Oba Ozolua. The Kingdom, with its four ruling houses Orhue, Orhoro, Evbreke, and Esezi was established around the mid-16th century and has maintained a centralized monarchy, territory, and cultural continuity ever since.
According to the Okpe Union, British colonial administrators lumped Okpe together with Urhobo for administrative convenience, despite clear linguistic and cultural differences. Renowned colonial anthropologist R.E. Bradbury once described the categorization of Okpe under Urhobo as a geographical, not linguistic, classification.
The Union cites the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Nigeria is a signatory, arguing that Okpe people have the right to maintain and protect their unique language, culture, and institutions.
“The assertion that Okpe is Urhobo is a colonial fabrication, perpetuated by political convenience,” Prof. Natufe said in his appeal. “Okpe has always been a sovereign cultural entity, and we demand that our people be allowed to write their own story.”
The Okpe Union’s assertion was met with swift condemnation from the Okpe traditional council, youth organizations, and several Urhobo leaders.
A joint press statement by the President General of Okpe Union Worldwide, Okakuro Robert Onome; Chairman of the 13 District Presidents-General, Harrison Ekeleme; and President of the Okpe Youth Council, Comrade Moses Odiete, decried the separationist movement as a product of “mischief makers in the Diaspora.”
They pointed directly at Prof. Natufe as the mastermind behind the campaign, alleging that he neither speaks the Okpe dialect nor understands Urhobo language and traditions.
“Prof. Natufe wants to rule the Okpe Union from abroad. He is not rooted in Okpe tradition and cannot speak for us,” the leaders claimed. They argued that Okpe’s consistent participation and leadership in Urhobo Progress Union (UPU) activities, from General Patrick Aziza to Prof. Sam Oyovbaire, is proof that Okpe is an integral part of Urhobo Nation.
“The first Okpe National Constitution of 1945 affirmed Okpe as Urhobo. So did the royal pronouncements of Orodje Orhoro I. To now claim otherwise is political opportunism,” the statement said.
They emphasized linguistic similarities, cultural commonalities, and political history as evidence that Okpe is one of the 24 recognized Urhobo kingdoms.
However, the counter arguments have not gone unanswered. Several Okpe scholars, including Dr. Charles Efe Okorodudu, Prof. Kenneth Efakponana Eni, and Dr. Evans Igho Akpo, fired back with sharp critiques, accusing the pro-Urhobo camp of distorting facts and weaponizing political affiliations.
Dr. Okorodudu described the July 30 declaration as “riddled with historical distortions and emotional blackmail,” dismissing it as an effort to silence legitimate cultural self-determination.
“These are not just semantic differences,” he noted. “Okpe is linguistically distinct, politically organized as an independent kingdom before colonial distortions, and its people have every right to assert their identity.”
Prof. Eni warned that the politicization of ethnic identity has led to tension and division, particularly among students on university campuses who now face stigma for asserting their Okpe roots.
“Since when did political office holders become custodians of ethnic identity?” he asked. “You cannot redefine a people’s ancestry with a press conference.”
Dr. Akpo added, “The call for unity is valid but unity without truth is tyranny. If our history, language, and culture are distinct, then respect that distinctiveness. It does not mean hostility to Urhobo. It means cultural honesty.”
Some academics weigh in with moderation. The late Prof. Onigu Otite, an authority on Okpe political structure, reportedly affirmed Okpe’s Urhobo identity. Yet, even his work noted the administrative distinctiveness of Okpe, such as its centralized monarchy and governance via Dukes features not typical of other Urhobo clans.
Linguists such as Prof. Kay Williamson categorized both Okpe and Urhobo as Southwestern Edoid languages, suggesting a shared ancestry but diverging linguistic evolution.
As Dr. Akpo puts it, “Co-evolved languages do not equal the same ethnicity. Esan and Benin are related but distinct. The same applies to Okpe and Urhobo.”
Beyond history and language, the debate touches on representation, development, and political relevance. With Delta State’s complex ethnic configuration, any formal recognition of Okpe as a distinct nationality could have implications for resource allocation, political appointments, and cultural preservation.
Governor Sheriff Oborevwori, himself an Okpe indigene, has so far remained silent on the controversy. However, his government’s recent recognition of Ndokwa as a distinct nationality suggests that ethnic pluralism may be gaining momentum.
The Okpe-Urhobo identity debate is more than semantics it is a reflection of Nigeria’s broader struggle to reconcile imposed colonial boundaries with indigenous identities.
While some advocate for consolidation under a united Urhobo identity for political strength, others argue that only by recognizing Okpe’s uniqueness can its history, culture, and future be truly preserved.
What is clear is that the issue will not be resolved by press statements or political grandstanding. What is needed is respectful dialogue, academic rigor, and a willingness to allow a people to define themselves not be defined by others.
As Chinua Achebe once said, “Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.”
In the case of Okpe, the lions are beginning to speak.
Emmanuel Obe is a journalist and public affairs analyst based in Nigeria.
