An Open Letter to the Ijaw NationBy Stakeholders at Home and in the Global DiasporaCommitted to Transformational Leadership

An Open Letter to the Ijaw Nation

By Stakeholders at Home and in the Global Diaspora

Committed to Transformational Leadership

In Defense of Constitutional Integrity and Institutional Legitimacy In INC

March 11, 2025

To the revered traditional rulers of the Ijaw Nation,

To the elders and founding stewards of our collective struggle,

To the youth, professionals, women, and patriots of the Ijaw Nation,

To the leadership and membership of the Ijaw National Congress (INC),

We write with a profound sense of responsibility and with deep reverence for the

history, dignity, and constitutional heritage of the Ijaw Nation.

The moment presently confronting the Ijaw National Congress is not a routine electoral

disagreement. It is a constitutional moment — one that touches the very foundations

of institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and the moral authority of the INC as the

principal voice of the Ijaw people.

Let us therefore be unequivocal: the issue before the Ijaw Nation is not about

personalities, preferences, or factions. It concerns the supremacy of the INC

Constitution and whether the organization that claims to represent the collective will of

the Ijaw people will remain subject to the rule of law it proclaims.

Our purpose in writing is both principled and pragmatic. We do not seek to inflame

divisions nor to reduce a serious constitutional matter to personal disagreements.

Rather, we write to uphold the constitutional order of the Ijaw National Congress and

to explain, with clarity and restraint, why the circumstances surrounding the

suspension of the INC electoral process require careful scrutiny.

Of particular concern is the subsequent reinstatement of certain candidates who had

earlier been constitutionally disqualified. Such developments raise significant

constitutional and institutional questions that cannot be ignored. They must be

addressed transparently and decisively in the interest of justice, the credibility of the

INC as an institution, and the enduring unity of the Ijaw Nation.

Let it therefore be clearly stated: the Constitution of the Ijaw National Congress is

supreme. It cannot be suspended by convenience, overridden by personalities, or

substituted by ad hoc political settlements negotiated behind closed doors. The

integrity of the INC must stand upon constitutional fidelity — or it will stand upon

nothing.

I. The Ijaw National Congress Exists Under the Authority of Its Constitution

Every serious institution derives its legitimacy not from individuals but from rules. The

INC Constitution was crafted precisely to prevent arbitrariness, factional manipulation,

and procedural improvisation.

When constitutional procedures are disregarded, institutions do not merely experience

internal disagreements — they face a crisis of legitimacy.

The present controversy raises unavoidable questions that must be answered

transparently before the entire Ijaw Nation:

1. Were the procedures for candidate qualification and disqualification executed

strictly in accordance with the provisions of the INC Constitution?

2. Were disqualified candidates subsequently reinstated through a constitutionally

authorized process or through discretionary intervention?

3. Were the constitutionally designated organs responsible for dispute resolution

properly activated and allowed to function independently?

4. Were delegates to the National Convention selected through constitutionally

prescribed clan and zonal general assemblies?

These are not rhetorical questions. They are constitutional questions that strike directly

at the legitimacy of the process.

Available evidence suggests that significant procedural irregularities may have

occurred. These concerns require urgent institutional clarification and correction if the

credibility of the INC electoral process is to be preserved and if the Ijaw Nation is to

continue to command the respect of other ethnic nationalities.

II. Constitutional Ambiguity Surrounding the Reinstatement of Disqualified

Candidates

One of the most troubling developments in the current dispute is the reinstatement of

previously disqualified presidential candidates without clear constitutional justification.

In any system governed by constitutional principles, three requirements must guide

decisions relating to candidate qualification or disciplinary action:

1. Clarity of Rule — The constitutional provision invoked must be clearly

identified.

2. Due Process — Affected parties must be granted a fair hearing before the

constitutionally mandated adjudicatory body.

3. Institutional Authority — The body making the decision must possess explicit

constitutional jurisdiction to do so.

While the initial disqualification process appeared to follow certain procedural steps,

the subsequent reinstatement of those candidates has introduced serious

constitutional ambiguity.

An electoral body cannot simultaneously function as investigator, adjudicator, and

appellate authority. Such a concentration of authority contradicts the fundamental logic

of constitutional governance and inevitably invites legal contestation.

When procedural boundaries collapse, institutional legitimacy collapses with them.

III. Conflict of Interest in Electoral Oversight

Equally concerning are reports that certain members of the National Executive Council

(NEC) exercised direct influence over the electoral process.

In credible democratic systems — whether within civil society organizations or

sovereign states — those who exercise executive authority are institutionally

separated from those responsible for administering elections. This separation is

essential to maintaining neutrality and public confidence.

When individuals occupying executive authority participate in supervising or

influencing electoral administration, even the appearance of bias can irreparably

damage the credibility of the process.

Institutions preserve legitimacy not merely by acting fairly, but by ensuring that their

processes are seen to be fair, transparent, and impartial.

IV. The Question of Delegate Legitimacy

The legitimacy of any election rests fundamentally upon the legitimacy of those who

constitute its electorate. Within the constitutional framework of the Ijaw National

Congress, delegates to the National Convention are expected to emerge through clan

general assemblies and other constitutionally recognized representative structures.

This framework reflects the long-standing democratic ethos embedded in Ijaw political

culture, where leadership legitimacy flows upward from community consultation and

collective deliberation rather than downward through administrative appointment.

When delegates are not produced through constitutionally sanctioned clan

assemblies, the legitimacy of the electoral college itself becomes subject to serious

question. An election conducted by improperly constituted delegates cannot

reasonably command the full confidence of the Ijaw Nation, nor can it provide the moral

authority required for national representation. Calls for the reconstitution of the

electoral college through properly convened and constitutionally compliant clan

assemblies should therefore not be mischaracterized as obstruction. Rather, they

represent legitimate demands for procedural integrity and constitutional compliance.

V. The Proper Role of CITRE in Constitutional and Electoral Dispute Resolution

The INC Constitution already provides a mechanism for resolving constitutional and

electoral disputes: the Conference of Ijaw Traditional Rulers and Elders (CITRE).

CITRE exists precisely to ensure that disputes of constitutional interpretation are

resolved through structured deliberation rather than political improvisation.

Unfortunately, there are growing concerns that CITRE has not been allowed to operate

with the full independence and authority envisioned by the Constitution.

Furthermore, allegations of repeated interference by elements within the current INC

leadership — particularly actions attributed to Professor Benjamin Ogele Okaba and

Engr. Ebi Wodu — raise troubling questions about institutional overreach and

executive encroachment into constitutional processes.

No leader, regardless of office, possesses the authority to override constitutional

mechanisms. To do so is not merely a procedural error. It constitutes institutional

misconduct.

VI. The Suspension of the Electoral Process: An Opportunity for Institutional

Correction

While the suspension of the INC election is regrettable, it may also provide an

important opportunity for institutional reflection and corrective action.

Rather than forcing a conclusion to a disputed process, the INC leadership should

seize this moment to restore confidence across the Ijaw Nation.

Corrective measures may include:

1. Dissolution and reconstitution of the current electoral committee.

2. Revalidation of delegates through constitutionally recognized clan general assemblies.

3. Full activation of CITRE to adjudicate outstanding constitutional disputes.

4. Establishment of a temporary caretaker administrative structure, if necessary, to oversee a constitutionally compliant electoral process. Such measures would not weaken the INC. They would strengthen it. Institutions that

possess the courage to correct themselves demonstrate maturity and resilience.

VII. A Call for Responsible Leadership

We therefore call upon:

1. The leadership of the INC to reaffirm unequivocally the supremacy of the INC

Constitution.

2. The electoral authorities to ensure that every procedural step complies strictly

with constitutional provisions.

3. Traditional rulers and elder statesmen to serve as guardians of fairness,

wisdom, and institutional balance.

4. Ijaw citizens everywhere to remain peaceful, vigilant, and unwavering in their

commitment to constitutional governance.

Strong nations are not defined by the absence of disagreements. They are defined by

their commitment to resolve disagreements through principled institutions.

VIII. Our Collective Commitment

We, concerned Ijaw citizens across the Niger Delta, Nigeria, and the global diaspora,

affirm our steadfast commitment to:

1. The supremacy of the INC Constitution

2. Transparent and credible electoral processes

3. The preservation of unity within the Ijaw Nation

4. The protection of the constitutional rights of every qualified candidate

Our objective is not confrontation, but correction.

Not factional victory, but institutional legitimacy.

Not temporary advantage, but enduring constitutional order.

The future of the Ijaw Nation demands nothing less.

History will judge this moment. The Constitution of the Ijaw National Congress is the

shield that protects our collective dignity and the compass that guides our institutional

conduct. If that shield is weakened and that compass ignored, the very authority of the

INC to speak for the Ijaw people will stand diminished. We therefore say with clarity

and with the moral weight of the Ijaw Nation behind us: let the Constitution stand. Let

the rules be respected. Let justice guide the process. Only then can the INC continue

to command the trust of the people in whose name it speaks.

Signed:

Concerned Ijaw Citizens

Across the Niger Delta, Nigeria, and the Global Diaspora

On behalf of stakeholders committed to constitutional governance within the Ijaw

National Congress

1. Chief Bukazi Etete

2. Elder Roland Ekperi

3. Elder Zee Debekeme

4. High Chief Amagbe Denzil Kentebe

5. Prof. Mondy Sele Gold

6. Dr Mrs Timiebi Koripamo Agary

7. Prof. Edward Agbai

8. Ms. Adeline Toboulayefa Orife

9. Mr Ben Okoro

10. Mr Elaye Otrofanowei

11. Engr. Charles Ambaiowei

12. Prof Koku K Obiyai

13. Dr Kakiri Woyengidubamo

14. High Chief Ayakeme Whisky (PHD)

15. Ms Ibiba Don Pedro

16. Mr Tare Ekpebu

17. Dr Kabowei Akamande

18. Rear Admiral Godwin Ayankpele (Rtd)

19. Mrs Rosemary John-Oduone

20. Pastor E. Robinson Oyanene

21. Rear Admiral BJ Gbassa (Rtd)

22. Mr Yimovie Sakue-Collins

23. Mr Pattison Boleigha

24. Elder Ben Nanagha

25. Mr Efiye Bribena

26. Dr Ebitimi George

27. Dame Ann Kio Briggs

28. Hon Iniruo Wills

29. Maj. Gen. Paul Alaowei Toun (Rtd)

30. Dr Idah Felix Waboso KSC JP

31. Capt Prekeme Porbeni

32. Chief Atamuno Atamuno

33. Chief Andrew Elijah