“Return To Peremabiri And Beg Your People For Forgiveness!” — Otuedon Fires Back At Ogunboss, Revives Questions Over Community Ties As Osia’s “You Buried Your Father In Yenagoa” Remark Resurfaces

By Passman Akpos

WARRI, NIGERIA — The growing controversy surrounding Paul Eris, popularly known as Ogunboss, has taken another turn following a fresh challenge by Warri-based commentator Yemi Otuedon, who has urged him to return to Peremabiri, humble himself and seek forgiveness from his community if reconciliation is necessary.

Otuedon’s intervention has also brought renewed attention to an earlier statement attributed to Ezekiel Perela Daniel Osia, who reportedly criticised Ogunboss over the burial of his father in Yenagoa.

In the earlier statement, Osia reportedly declared, “Your dad in Yenagoa, an abomination act,” while alleging that Ogunboss was influenced by fear of Amagbein in his community.

Although the two statements were made at different times and by different individuals, they share a common theme: questions about Ogunboss’s relationship with his community, his family decisions and the expectations placed on prominent individuals by their people.

However, the allegations remain unverified, and neither statement independently establishes wrongdoing by Ogunboss.

The renewed attention raises a question that now sits at the centre of the controversy: What is the actual state of Ogunboss’s relationship with Peremabiri, and what are the facts behind the allegations being made against him?

OTUEDON: “RETURN TO PEREMABIRI AND BEG YOUR PEOPLE FOR FORGIVENESS!”

In his latest public response, Otuedon challenged Ogunboss to address questions concerning his reported relationship with Peremabiri rather than allegedly focusing on the possibility of another person’s arrest.

The confrontation followed comments attributed to Ogunboss in which he reportedly described Otuedon’s public statements as barking, suggested that Otuedon should prepare a medical report ahead of a possible arrest, and identified former militant leader Boyloaf as the alleged sponsor of Otuedon’s interventions.

Ogunboss also reportedly dismissed concerns surrounding a disputed court cause list as an attempt to cover up embarrassment.

Otuedon rejected the remarks and challenged Ogunboss to explain his own relationship with his community.

According to Otuedon, Ogunboss’s reported absence from Peremabiri was connected to what he characterised as dictatorial tendencies and greed. He further alleged that Ogunboss had been driven away and should reconcile with his people.

Those claims have not been independently verified, and Ogunboss’s account of his relationship with Peremabiri was not available for this report.

Nevertheless, Otuedon’s message was direct: if there are unresolved grievances between Ogunboss and his community, he should address them rather than concentrate on allegations against others.

The challenge has shifted part of the public debate from the personal exchange between the two men to questions about community reconciliation and accountability.

HOW OSIA’S EARLIER “YOU BURIED YOUR FATHER IN YENAGOA” STATEMENT FITS INTO THE CONTROVERSY

The latest confrontation has also revived interest in an earlier statement attributed to Ezekiel Perela Daniel Osia, who reportedly criticised Ogunboss over the burial of his father in Yenagoa.

Osia’s reported words were particularly provocative.

“Your dad in Yenagoa, an abomination act,” he allegedly declared, questioning the burial arrangement from the perspective of what he considered traditional expectations.

He also reportedly alleged that Ogunboss’s decision was influenced by fear of Amagbein in his community.

The statement introduced family and traditional considerations into the wider dispute surrounding Ogunboss.

Now, with Otuedon separately challenging Ogunboss to return to Peremabiri and seek forgiveness from his community, the earlier remarks have acquired renewed relevance to the public debate.

The connection between the two statements is their shared focus on community ties and accountability—not proof that the allegations made by either speaker are correct.

Osia’s earlier remarks concerned the burial of Ogunboss’s father in Yenagoa and an allegation involving Amagbein. Otuedon’s latest intervention focuses on Ogunboss’s reported relationship with Peremabiri and his challenge to address any unresolved community grievances.

The two issues should not be conflated.

The burial allegation does not establish that Ogunboss is estranged from Peremabiri, just as Otuedon’s challenge does not establish that the burial violated any recognised tradition.

The circumstances of the burial, the family’s reasons for choosing Yenagoa and the actual state of Ogunboss’s relationship with his community require independent clarification.

“AN ABOMINATION ACT”: A CULTURAL CLAIM THAT REQUIRES EVIDENCE

Osia’s reported description of the burial as an “abomination act” raises a sensitive question about the role of traditional expectations in family burial decisions.

However, the statement reflects Osia’s reported characterisation. It should not be treated as an established description of the customs of Peremabiri or any other community without reliable evidence.

Burial practices can differ between communities and families. Determining whether a particular burial arrangement breached a recognised custom would require evidence about the applicable tradition, the circumstances of the decision and the views of relevant community authorities.

The allegation that Ogunboss acted out of fear of Amagbein also remains unsubstantiated in the material available for this report.

Ogunboss and his family should have the opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the burial and respond to the claims.

Without that response and independent corroboration, the public should avoid treating the allegations as established facts.

OTUEDON REJECTS BOYLOAF SPONSORSHIP CLAIM

Another major issue in the confrontation is the allegation that Boyloaf sponsors Otuedon’s public interventions.

Ogunboss reportedly identified Boyloaf as Otuedon’s sponsor, suggesting that his public statements should be understood through the lens of patronage.

Otuedon rejected the allegation, maintaining that his position on issues affecting his people was based on his convictions and identity.

Describing himself as an Itsekiri man and a son of the soil, he argued that he did not need to be Boyloaf’s friend to speak about matters affecting his people.

No supporting evidence for the sponsorship allegation was provided in the material reviewed for this report.

The dispute raises a wider question about public accountability in the Niger Delta: should criticism of influential figures be assessed on its substance, or should it be dismissed through allegations about who may be supporting the critic?

If Ogunboss has evidence of financial sponsorship or direction, that evidence would help clarify the issue. In the absence of such evidence, the allegation remains unsubstantiated.

“TOMPOLO WILL NOT LIVE FOREVER” — OTUEDON REJECTS FEAR OF POWERFUL FIGURES

Otuedon also addressed Government Ekpemupolo, popularly known as Tompolo, arguing that no individual should be treated as a god because of personal influence or status.

He reportedly alleged that he was aware of plans involving Tompolo, Kestin, Dennis and others against him.

However, the nature of those alleged plans remains unclear, and no independent evidence was provided to establish that the named individuals were planning his arrest or attempting to intimidate him.

Otuedon maintained that he would not allow fear of influential personalities to prevent him from speaking about matters affecting his people.

He also referred to a period when Tompolo was declared wanted, using the historical comparison to argue that circumstances surrounding powerful individuals can change over time.

These remarks form part of Otuedon’s own interpretation of the dispute. They do not independently establish the existence of any current plan against him.

The individuals named in the allegations should have an opportunity to respond.

PEREMABIRI, YENAGOA AND THE QUESTION OF COMMUNITY ACCOUNTABILITY

Taken together, Otuedon’s latest challenge and Osia’s earlier statement have placed Ogunboss’s community relationship under renewed public scrutiny.

Yet several important distinctions remain.

First, a challenge to return to Peremabiri is not proof that Ogunboss cannot return or that his community has rejected him.

Second, an allegation that his father’s burial in Yenagoa violated traditional expectations is not proof that any recognised custom was breached.

Third, the allegation that Ogunboss acted out of fear of Amagbein has not been independently substantiated.

These distinctions matter because a public controversy can easily become a source of misinformation when competing allegations are repeated as established facts.

The relevant questions are whether Ogunboss has an unresolved dispute with his community, whether any reconciliation efforts have taken place, what circumstances informed his father’s burial arrangements, and whether the people making these allegations can substantiate them.

Those questions deserve answers from the parties involved.

QUESTIONS OGUNBOSS SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER

To establish the facts behind the controversy, the following questions require clarification:

1. What is the current state of Ogunboss’s relationship with Peremabiri?
2. Are there documented community grievances or reconciliation efforts involving Ogunboss?
3. What were the circumstances behind the burial of his father in Yenagoa?
4. Which specific traditional expectations did Osia believe the burial violated, and what evidence supports that interpretation?
5. What is the basis of Osia’s allegation that Ogunboss acted out of fear of Amagbein?
6. What evidence, if any, supports Ogunboss’s reported allegation that Boyloaf sponsors Otuedon’s public interventions?
7. What evidence supports Otuedon’s claim that powerful individuals are planning against him?

The questions should be addressed through evidence, direct responses and independent verification—not further personal attacks.

OTUEDON: “I SHALL ALWAYS STAND FOR MY PEOPLE”

Concluding his statement, Otuedon reportedly reaffirmed his determination to speak on matters affecting his people despite the challenges he says he faces.

“I remain Otuedon of Warri and shall always stand for my people no matter the threat and challenges,” he declared.

His position was that neither allegations of sponsorship nor the influence of powerful personalities should determine whether he speaks publicly.

For Ogunboss, the latest challenge presents an opportunity to address the allegations concerning Peremabiri, clarify the circumstances surrounding his father’s burial and respond to the sponsorship claims.

For Osia, the earlier cultural allegation would benefit from a clear explanation of the specific tradition he believes was breached and evidence supporting his interpretation.

Ultimately, the controversy should not be reduced to a contest over who can deliver the harshest insult.

It should be an opportunity to establish facts, clarify disputed claims and ensure that everyone involved has a fair chance to respond.

THE BIG QUESTION

Is the controversy about Ogunboss’s relationship with Peremabiri, the burial of his father in Yenagoa, or a wider struggle over influence and public accountability in the Niger Delta?

The available statements do not establish a definitive answer.

What they do establish is that serious allegations have been exchanged and that the public needs verifiable information before reaching conclusions.

TARAKIRIVOICE REPORTING NOTE: This report draws on statements supplied for publication. The allegations concerning Peremabiri, the burial of Ogunboss’s father in Yenagoa, Amagbein, Boyloaf’s alleged sponsorship and the alleged plans against Otuedon have not been independently verified. Osia’s description of the burial as an “abomination act” is attributed to him and is not presented as an established cultural fact. Ogunboss and the other individuals mentioned should be given an opportunity to respond.