“Who Was IYC Really Representing?” Daukoru Controversy Puts Youth Council Under Fresh Scrutiny
By Passman Akpos
Fresh controversy has erupted over the ongoing dispute involving Kariyai Daukoru, the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC), and the Azikel Group, following conflicting accounts of a recent meeting between Daukoru and an IYC delegation at the Kuje Custodial Centre.
The latest development followed a statement by the Azikel Group denying that it instructed the IYC to demand an apology from Daukoru or the withdrawal of his civil suit as a condition for resolving the dispute.
The denial has now prompted the Daukoru family and independent observers to question what transpired before and during the Kuje meeting, particularly after earlier public statements attributed to IYC representatives appeared to suggest that an apology and withdrawal of the lawsuit were part of the proposed settlement.
According to the account circulated by Kesiye Reporters, Tari Agai was the first to publicly advance the alleged proposal on August 12, 2026, claiming that Dr. Azibapu Eruani had offered to secure Daukoru’s freedom if he apologised and withdrew his lawsuit.
The report said the IYC subsequently presented the proposal to Daukoru at Kuje Custodial Centre, where he allegedly rejected the demand and maintained that any genuine Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process should take place outside prison.
The Daukoru family has strongly disputed the characterization of Kariyai as an “arrogant” or “proud” litigant unwilling to settle, insisting that he has consistently expressed willingness to consider ADR—but not while incarcerated.
In a separate statement attributed to Boye Kariyai, wife of Kariyai Daukoru, she alleged that the IYC delegation was not entirely neutral during the Kuje meeting.
She specifically accused Barrister Ayebakuro Igbeta, identified as a member of the delegation, of attempting to draft an apology for Daukoru to sign.
According to her account, Igbeta allegedly told Daukoru that he would go to prison and repeatedly urged him to apologise as a means of securing his freedom.
The family further alleged that Igbeta told Daukoru that “it is Eruani that is keeping you in prison.”
These claims have not been independently verified by Tarakirivoice, and the individuals named in the allegations would have an opportunity to respond.
The family also questioned the role of Meshack N. Sintei, whom it alleged is connected to Eruani’s legal team in proceedings before the Bayelsa State High Court.
Boye Kariyai claimed that Sintei participated in the Kuje meeting despite his alleged legal connection to Eruani, raising questions about whether he attended as an IYC representative or in another capacity.
The family described the alleged involvement as a potential conflict of interest and called for transparency regarding the composition and mandate of the IYC delegation.
The controversy has also revived questions surrounding previous public claims about attempts to mediate the dispute.
Kesiye Reporters cited an earlier incident involving Igali Robert, whom it alleged acted on Eruani’s instructions to make a radio announcement concerning Daukoru and Ebilate Yebei travelling to the United States.
The publication alleged that the Azikel Group subsequently denied sending Robert to the radio station.
The Daukoru family now argues that the latest disagreement follows a similar pattern—an alleged proposal being publicly communicated through intermediaries before the principal parties distance themselves from the terms.
The central question, according to the family, is whether the IYC was actually authorised to present an apology and lawsuit withdrawal as conditions for resolving Daukoru’s detention, or whether those terms originated independently within the mediation process.
The family has also challenged statements attributed to the IYC concerning Governor Douye Diri, particularly claims that the governor advised Daukoru to “address his excesses” and return to his community.
Following the Azikel Group’s denial concerning the alleged apology demand, the family said the IYC should clarify precisely what was discussed during its engagements with political and business stakeholders.
“The public deserves to know who authorised what was presented to Kariyai at Kuje,” the family’s position effectively argues.
The dispute has therefore shifted beyond the question of whether Daukoru should apologise. It has become a broader debate about the credibility of the mediation process, the neutrality of those involved and whether a person in custody can meaningfully participate in negotiations concerning his legal rights.
The Daukoru family maintains that its position has remained consistent: Kariyai will not apologise or withdraw his civil action from inside prison.
It said that if Eruani and the Azikel Group genuinely desire ADR, their legal representatives should engage directly with Daukoru’s defence team through a recognised legal process after his release.
Meanwhile, the IYC and the individuals named in the allegations have yet to publicly provide a detailed point-by-point response to all the claims contained in the family’s latest statement.
As competing press releases continue to emerge, attention is now turning to the documentary evidence referenced by the parties—including IYC statements, court processes and records of previous mediation efforts.
For Bayelsans and the wider Ijaw community, the emerging controversy raises a fundamental question: Was the IYC acting on instructions from the Azikel Group and Eruani, or did its representatives independently introduce the controversial conditions during their mediation efforts?
Until the parties provide consistent accounts supported by documentary evidence, the dispute is likely to remain a major subject of public debate.
Tarakirivoice News will continue to report developments while giving all parties an opportunity to respond to allegations made against them.
