Amukpe, Sagay & The Courtroom That Settled History
LAND, MEMORY, AND THE POLITICS OF TRUTH IN DELTA STATE
When History Refuses to Be Rewritten
LAND disputes in Delta State rarely remain legal matters alone. They quickly become battles over memory, identity, and political relevance. One such dispute, involving the Sagay family of Amukpe community, has resurfaced as a powerful reminder that documented truth can outlast even the loudest attempts at historical distortion.
The Sagay family, an Itsekiri lineage, did not arrive in Amukpe as conquerors or founders. Their presence dates to the late nineteenth century, following the British military campaign against Chief Nana Olomu’s Ebrohimi stronghold in 1894. The resulting displacement scattered Itsekiri families across neighbouring territories in search of safety and survival.
Refuge Under Indigenous Authority
Within Okpe Urhobo land, displaced families were received under established customs governing strangers. While some were settled in Sapele’s designated quarters, the Sagay family found refuge in Amukpe. Indigenous leaders granted them land to settle and farm, a gesture rooted in hospitality rather than cession of ownership.
This distinction is critical. Under Urhobo customary law, land granted to strangers does not extinguish indigenous title. The arrangement guarantees protection, permanence, and social integration, but not ownership. The Sagay family accepted this framework and lived under it for generations without contest.
Crisis and an Uncommon Choice
The fragile coexistence was shattered during the ethnic violence of 1952, linked to the expansion of the Itsekiri monarch’s title. The Sagay settlement was destroyed, forcing a temporary flight to Sapele. When tensions cooled and the matter reached the courts, the family faced a choice that many in similar circumstances have avoided: to reshape history or to tell it plainly.
They chose the latter. In sworn testimony, the Sagay family acknowledged that they were customary tenants on land belonging to the Amukpe Okpe Urhobo people. They did not claim aboriginal ownership. They did not invoke legends or founding myths. They relied solely on recorded fact.
The court ruled in their favour, affirming their right to remain as protected tenants. It was a decision grounded in law and reinforced by honesty.
The Politics of Selective Memory
This clarity stands in contrast to ongoing attempts by some Itsekiri interests in Sapele to revive discredited ownership claims. Narratives such as the “Princess Oyefo” account, rejected by courts decades ago, continue to circulate in political discourse despite their collapse under judicial scrutiny.
The Sagay case exposes the weakness of such revisionism. It demonstrates that peaceful settlement and legal recognition are possible without denying indigenous ownership or manufacturing ancestral myths.
A Template for Coexistence
Today, the Sagay descendants are an integral part of Amukpe society. Intermarriage, shared institutions, and communal life have erased any sense of rivalry. Their continued presence has never threatened indigenous authority because it was never built on denial of it.
Their story underscores a broader lesson for Delta State: stability emerges when history is respected, not manipulated. Justice does not require erasing hosts or elevating guests into fictional founders. It requires documentation, humility, and respect for customary law.
As debates over land and identity persist, the Sagay example remains a quiet but powerful rebuke to ethnic propaganda. It proves that truth, even when inconvenient, is the most durable foundation for peace.
