Tarakiri Identity War Explodes: Ijaw–Urhobo Clash Intensifies Over 1970 Government Document — “Who Really Owns The History?”

By Passman Akpos

The historical identity and ancestry of the Tarakiri Clan have come under renewed scrutiny following the resurfacing of a 1970 government document that has triggered a fresh and heated debate between Ijaw and Urhobo commentators.

The controversy centres on the ancestry of Tarakiriowei, the communities associated with his lineage, and competing interpretations of whether the Tarakiri ancestry should be understood primarily through Ijaw, Urhobo or an earlier Benin connection.

The document in circulation is titled “The Resume of a Meeting Between the Research Officer, Mr. A.O.E.V. Egalase, and the Chiefs and Representatives of the Tarakiri Clan in the Customary Court Hall, Patani, Western Ijaw Division.”

According to the document, the meeting took place at 12 noon on Monday, November 9, 1970, and involved the Research Officer, chiefs and elders of the Tarakiri Clan, representatives of the Western Ijaw Northern District Council and interpreters.

Check document here 👇

The report states that Chief Eyifooru initially attempted to give the history of the clan, but the Research Officer subsequently read an Intelligence Report to the gathering.

According to the historical account contained in the report, Ondo was the father of three sons — Tarakiriowei, Kolokumowei and Opokumowei.

The report further states that, following alleged oppression from the Oba, Ondo and his three sons fled from Benin to Aboh and later moved to Amatolo in the Sagbama Creek around 1732.

It says Kolokumo and Opokumo later sought other places to settle, while Tarakri, identified as the eldest, remained at Amatolo and subsequently founded what became known as the Tarakiri Clan.

The report then lists towns and children associated with Tarakiri, including names such as Isampou, Ebedebiri, Angalahri, Agboro, Bulou-orua, Ofoni and Odorubu, alongside descendants including Muluku, Ekiebriowei, Awaran, Angalabriowei, Egbemo, Kolobriowei and Ogele.

It is the reference to Ogele — which participants in the current debate identify with modern Ughelli — that has become one of the most contentious aspects of the discussion.

One side of the debate argues that the document demonstrates a common ancestral connection between Tarakiri and communities that later became associated with the Urhobo people.

Another side argues that the report does not establish that Tarakiriowei was a Benin man, nor does it state that his descendants were not Ijaw.

Delma Keme Emmanuel, challenging the interpretation of the document, asked where exactly the report states that Tarakiriowei was a Benin man.

He argued that the document clearly identifies Tarakiriowei as part of the genealogy of the Tarakiri Clan but does not explicitly make the ethnic conclusion being attributed to it.

The debate has also focused heavily on the names appearing in the genealogy, particularly the use of “-owei,” with some participants arguing that the naming pattern reflects Ijaw identity.

Dr. Ejiro Imuere, however, has advanced a different interpretation.

Imuere argues that the historical account should be considered alongside Urhobo oral tradition, which he says identifies Tarakiri by another name and traces his ancestry to Benin.

According to the version presented by Imuere, Tarakiri was originally known as Oaghwa, while his father was identified as Asene or Asini. He argued that migration, intermarriage and changes in language could have resulted in the alteration of names and identities over generations.

Imuere has also argued that sharing an ancestor does not necessarily mean that all descendants must retain the same ethnic identity.

That argument has been challenged by commentators who maintain that the Tarakiri genealogy and the Ijaw character of several names in the 1970 report provide important evidence about the identity of the original lineage.

Language has consequently become another major issue in the controversy.

Some participants argue that the fact that communities such as Ughelli and other areas associated with the Tarakiri lineage speak Urhobo should be considered evidence of their present ethnic identity.

Others counter that language can change over time as a result of migration, intermarriage, settlement and prolonged interaction with neighbouring communities.

One argument circulating in the debate is that people from a common ancestral lineage could have developed different linguistic and cultural identities after moving into different geographical areas.

The controversy has now expanded beyond Tarakiri himself to questions surrounding Ughelli, Oduorobu, Ofoni and other communities identified in the historical narrative.

At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of the 1970 government record.

The document clearly presents Ondo as the father of Tarakiriowei, Kolokumowei and Opokumowei and records a migration story involving Benin, Aboh and Amatolo before the emergence of the Tarakiri Clan.

However, the portion of the document currently being circulated does not explicitly state that Tarakiriowei was a Benin royal prince, nor does it expressly settle whether the descendants should be classified exclusively as Ijaw or Urhobo.

That distinction has become central to the current argument.

As the debate intensifies, both Ijaw and Urhobo commentators are demanding that historical claims be subjected to documentary evidence, oral traditions and independent research rather than present-day ethnic assumptions.

The Tarakiri controversy therefore raises a broader historical question: Can ancestry, language, culture and ethnic identity always be treated as the same thing?

For now, the 1970 government report has become a major piece of evidence in an increasingly heated historical debate — but its interpretation remains fiercely contested.

EDITOR’S NOTE:

The claims concerning Benin ancestry, Ijaw identity and Urhobo identity contained in this report represent positions advanced by participants in the ongoing debate. The 1970 document itself should be examined alongside other primary historical records, archival materials and community oral histories before definitive conclusions are reached.