The last may not have been heard on the recent reversal of the royal suspension of a Chief at Ubulu-Uku, in Aniocha South Local Government Area by agents of the state government as some concerned indigenes of Ubulu-Uku at home and in the Diaspora have reacted to the government’s action. They allege that the action tends to desecrate the community’s Royal institution. A well clarified statement signed by five (on behalf) of the concerned citizens is hereby published unabridged.
INTRODUCTION
In modern Nigerian jurisprudence, the intersection of traditional institutions and state regulatory frameworks remains a delicate, highly sensitive constitutional frontier. Long before the artificial boundaries of the modern Nigerian state were drawn, the Royal Stool of Ubulu-Uku stood as an unassailable bastion of ancestral authority, spiritual custodianship, and communal cohesion for the Aniocha people.
For centuries, the Obi of Ubulu-Uku has derived his sovereignty not fro the ink of a bureaucratic pen but from an unbroken lineage of divine right and the deep-seated consensus of his subjects. As the profound adage reminds us, “An elder cannot sit at home and watch the she-goat deliver whilst tied to its tether.”
This sacred duty to protect our heritage compels us to address a striking and deeply unsettling example of administrative overreach unfolding in Delta State.
THE FALLACY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INFALLIBILITY
Recently, the Special Adviser to the State Government on Peace Building and Conflict Resolution, Sir (Chief) Edwin Uzor, issued a statement purporting to invalidate the traditional suspension of Mr. James Asika Onwordi from the office of Onishe of Ubulu-Uku. The government’s intervention rests on a single, rigid premise: that because the chieftaincy title was formally published in the official government Gazette, it is insulated from the Throne’s unilateral disciplinary authority. Consequently, they argue, any disciplinary measures must receive prior state executive approval under the Delta State Traditional Rulers Council and Chiefs Law.
This administrative position, however, rests on a profound legal fallacy. It deliberately overlooks a fundamental, unassailable truth asserted by the palace: His Royal Majesty, Agbogidi Obi Chukwuka Noah Akaeze, the Obi of Ubulu-Uku Kingdom, has repeatedly and unequivocally declared that, at no material time did he author, sign, or initiate any statutory instrument to gazette the Onishe title for Mr. James Asika Onwordi or any other chieftaincy title in Ubulu-Uku. If a document exists in the state archives purporting to bear a royal request to this effect, it is an absolute forgery. Our elders say, “No matter how long a log of wood stays in the water, it can never turn into a crocodile.” In the same vein, no amount of official documentation can transform a fraudulent act into a legitimate traditional reality.
It is a profound historical irony and a gross constitutional anomaly for modern state actors, cloaked in transient political power, to attempt to diminish this sacred institution through inappropriate and overreaching executive fiats. In public and constitutional law, an administrative superstructure built on a foundation of fraud has no legal weight. Accordingly, where a fraudulent or unauthorised instrument is procured for publication in the state gazette, it is void ab initio and cannot be weaponised by the state to strip a traditional sovereign of his inherent customary authority.
While the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria grants administrative powers to state executives, it does not licence government officials to weaponise pronouncements to humiliate or destabilise the traditional institutions that form the bedrock of our society.
THE LEGAL ANATOMY OF FRAUD: Building Something on Nothing
Under the Doctrine of Vitiation by Fraud and Ab Initio Nullity, the position advanced by the State Government treats the official gazette as a form of statutory magic, an absolute shield capable of curing any prior procedural or substantive illegality. Such an interpretation fundamentally misconstrues the core tenets of administrative law. Nigerian courts, heavily influenced by English common law principles, have long held that fraud vitiates all subsequent proceedings and leaves no legally enforceable remnants.
The definitive authority on this point remains the landmark decision of the Privy Council in Benjamin Leonard MacFoy v United African Company Limited [1961] 3 All ER 1169 (PC) 1172, where Lord Denning famously articulated the principle of ab initio nullity: “If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad and there is no need for an order to set it aside for there is nothing to set aside
… You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.” Applying this foundational maxim to the present dispute, if the Obi of Ubulu-Uku never executed the traditional warrant or request required to trigger the statutory gazetting process, the resulting gazette exists in a legal vacuum. Because the underlying trigger was an unauthorised or forged act, the gazette is invalid from the outset. The state cannot use an administrative instrument born of deception to override the lawful, customary prerogatives of a reigning monarch. State officials
must recognise that they are merely custodians of a temporary political office, whereas the Sacred Stool is an eternal institution.
Arguably, the government’s stance aggressively violates the enduring legal maxim Nemo dat quod non habet: no one can give what they do not possess. In constitutional theory, the sovereign’s traditional authority cannot be stolen, manufactured, or distributed by junior bureaucrats or political actors.
Under Ubulu-Uku customary law, the Obi Agbogidi is the kingdom’s sole institutional repository of traditional authority. A political adviser, an external faction, or a rogue palace clerk cannot forge or “donate” the King’s voice to a state government department. “The stream cannot flow higher than its source,” and no bureaucrat can grant traditional legitimacy when the King himself has withheld it.
 THE BOUNDARIES OF AUTONOMY: Custodians of Ink versus
Owners of the Pen As firmly settled by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Chief Adigun & Ors v Attorney-General of Oyo State & Ors [1987] 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678. The apex court clarified that chieftaincy matters are governed by a hybrid legal framework that requires absolute compliance with native custom before state codification can take effect. While the state government commands the executive pen to print the gazette, only the King holds the traditional ink of original conferment.
If the King did not supply the ink, the pen was writing fraudulently. The state cannot use its printing press to unilaterally foist an uninitiated subject upon an ancient kingdom as a “gazetted” chief. The Obi of Ubulu-Uku is a sovereign cultural monarch, not a subordinate employee of a state government ministry; the state cannot rewrite custom by administrative fiat. This truth reasonably and firmly affirms the absolute validity of Mr. Asika Onwordi’s suspension.
On judicial precedents on Traditional Autonomy and preserving the status quo, the Delta State Government is legally obliged to respect the distinct, non-overlapping boundaries of traditional governance. Nigerian courts have
consistently barred the executive branch from rewriting community customs through arbitrary administrative processes.
The Obuzor of Ibusa Precedent : In Professor Louis Nwaoboshi v Delta State Government & Ors, a notable Delta State dispute concerning the ‘Obuzor of Ibusa stool,’ the Supreme Court of Nigeria evaluated the limits of executive power over traditional declarations. The court reaffirmed that the state government cannot utilise extraordinary gazettes to manufacture traditional validity where none exists under native law and custom. A gazette must strictly reflect traditional reality; it cannot invent it.
Moreover, within the administrative framework overseen by the Directorate of Chieftaincy Affairs, the Delta State Government has long recognised “the Obi’s prerogative to discipline erring chiefs.” When a subject seeks to exploit external political connections to circumvent the monarch and obtain statutory recognition, established administrative practice requires the state to preserve the traditional status quo and promptly defer to the traditional council until the underlying fraud is fully investigated. To do otherwise risks disorder, for, as the adage warns,
“When a king is insulted by a subject in the public square, the entire kingdom is clothed in shame.”
AN URGENT APPEAL FOR PEACE, ORDER, AND RESTRAINT
Meanwhile, as concerned indigenes of Ubulu-Uku, we plead for peace and order. We watch with profound alarm as actions taken under the colour of state authority threaten to tear apart the social and traditional fabric of our peaceful kingdom.
We make a passionate, loyal, and urgent appeal to His Excellency, the Executive Governor of Delta State, the Rt. Hon. Sheriff Oborevwori, to intervene decisively before a manufactured constitutional crisis degenerates into a breakdown of law and order.
We respectfully urge His Excellency to call his Special Adviser, Chief Edwin Uzor, to order. Chief Uzor’s recent statements are not only legally flawed but also profoundly inflammatory and laced with prejudice against the good people of Ubulu-Uku Kingdom, the Royal family and His Royal Majesty in particular. By unilaterally seeking to strip the Obi of his customary disciplinary powers, Chief Uzor denigrates the ancient Ubulu-Uku traditional institution.
His public pronouncements risk emboldening renegades and factions, and enabling actions capable of destabilising our kingdom. A political adviser’s role is to promote peace through justice, not to shield those who treat traditional authority with contempt.
Furthermore, we pray His Excellency to please call Mr.James Asika Onwordi to order, who routinely presents himself as a Special Assistant to the Governor of Delta State. Mr Asika Onwordi has consistently weaponised this purported state alignment to engage in rebellious and sacrilegious conduct against the ancient Throne of Ubulu-Uku Kingdom. Very recently, he invaded and vandalised the Obi’s Palace under the guise of an unauthorised renovation, without the prior permission, authorisation or consent of His Royal Majesty, operating under the questionable protection of the Ogwashi-Uku Police Area Command.
By using the esteemed name of the Governor’s office as a political cudgel against his own traditional ruler and the Youths, Mr. Onwordi brings the integrity of the state administration into disrepute. “The bird that dances in the middle of the road must know that its drummer is in the nearby bush.” The office of the Governor must never be seen as a sanctuary for individuals seeking to undermine the traditional institutions that form the bedrock of Delta State’s cultural heritage.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we, as concerned sons and daughters of Ubulu-Uku, will not shy away from defending our beloved Monarch and preserving the sanctity of the Throne. Sir (Chief) Edwin Uzor’s declaration purporting to invalidate the Obi’s traditional disciplinary actions constitutes executive overreach grounded in a legal fiction. A state gazette obtained through a backdoor mechanism, lacking the royal warrant, signature, or authority of the reigning monarch, is a legal nonentity.
To suggest that a King must seek permission from a state governor before he can traditionally suspend a subject for committing sacrilege within his own domain reduces an ancient stool to a mere outpost of the civil service. This mounts a rigorous constitutional and cultural defence of the traditional prerogatives of His Royal Majesty, the Obi of Ubulu-Uku, demonstrating that any executive action or pronouncement that seeks to undermine the sacred stool is an ultra vires abuse of power that violates the spirit of constitutional democracy.
Consequently, Mr. James Asika Onwordi remains validly suspended from all traditional rights, privileges, and recognitions associated with the Ubulu-Uku Kingdom due to his rebellious conduct, whilst the state gazette cited against the Throne remains an absolute nullity. We trust that His Excellency, our beloved Executive Governor, Rt. Hon. Sheriff Oborevwori, will act swiftly to restore administrative neutrality, uphold the rule of law, and preserve the sanctity of the Ubulu-Uku Kingdom.
Long Live HRM Obi Agbogidi, Obi Chukwuka Noah Akaeze!
Long live Ubulu-Uku Kingdom!
Long live Delta State!
Long Live the Federal Republic of Nigeria!
1. Tony Aniemeke Okonkwo
2. Engr. Kelly Ude
3. Barr. Winnie Dilionye Ogbolu
4 Donatus Iloba (PhD)
5. Pst. Callistus Okofu Anene
On behalf of concerned_ sons and daughters of Ubulu-Uku
