Urhobo Unity and Constituted Authority

We have watched, listened and read much about the happenings and the efforts made by Urhobo in North America to organize themselves into a national movement. We are often reminded of the history of the initial meetings and sleepless nights endured by pioneers during the formative years that date back to 1992. Some continue to remind us of events that are still kept in the realm of folklore about who and what broke up The Urhobo National Association (TUNA) the progeny of Urhobo National Association of North America (UNANA).

Clearly the events here in North America cannot be divorced from what happens in Urhoboland. The twin issues of Urhobo unity and progress are one that all agree on. However, there seems to be much ambivalence and uncertainty about the origins of the ethnicities that constitute the Urhobo nation. Also, there seems to be a pervasive apprehension, real or imagined, amongst some, that all the fingers are not equal. In a nation where each of the 22 constituent parts have significant variation in dialect and at least one of them is so different that the others cannot understand much less speak it, the question of evolving a structure to cater to the needs of all the federating units must be uppermost in the minds of the leaders and the thinkers. This has not been the case for the longest time; at least, not since the times of people like Chief Mukoro Mowoe, Chief J.S. Mariere, Omorohwovo Okoro, Mr. Thomas Erukeme, Mr. Joseph A. Uyo, Chief J. A. Okpodu, Chief J.A. Obaho, and Chief T.E.A. Salubi among others. We believe that it is with this understanding that Urhobo politicians have resolved to cooperate as an entity referred to as the Group of 1 (G1). G1 is in the process forming allies and cooperation with the Group of 3 (G3) that is comprised of Isoko, Itsekiri and Ijaw. What is newsworthy and significant is not that G1 and G3 are seeking to cooperate, rather it is the apparent acknowledgement that there are large enough differences with and between the 22 Urhobo clans that constitute G1.

In our humble opinion therefore, it is time that Urhobo leaders and thinkers examine this problem and figure out a workable solution. In the meantime, Urhobo Stakeholders For Change and Progress (USFCAP), {EmotorUrhobo – for short} believe that Urhobo Progress Union (UPU) is both the instrument of authority and leadership for the Urhobo nation as presently composed. We also believe that the UPU has been and will continue to be the symbol and organ of unity between the federating clans. In like manner, we believe that it should not be involved with partisan political activities. However, the leadership should be politically savvy enough to ensure the cultural, socioeconomic and political survival of Urhobo within the federating components of the Nigerian nation.

In our view, Urhobo in North America must see themselves as part of the effort to achieve this goal. We believe that an Urhobo continental movement in North America should seek to engage in this task in addition to other objectives that are outlined. This in no way means that Urhobo in North America should be subordinate to UPU. It is in this context that we resolved to take a close look at the affairs of Urhobo National Association of North America (UNANA).

We have spoken to a number of people and examined most of the written evidence available to us on these matters. A substantial number of these materials, including the 2004 Constitution of UNANA, are already in circulation in many media. Therefore, it is not necessary to rehearse every detail. What the 2004 Constitution says about election of the President is an essential prerequisite to our position. We reproduce here the relevant sections of the Constitution. Article 6.3 (c) says “The term of office of the President shall be two years provided no individual shall serve more than two (2) consecutive terms”. Article 5.5(b) says “The Chairperson of the Board of Trustees shall be vested with power to provide leadership and direction to the Board in carrying out its functions, duties and responsibilities under this constitution”. Article 5.3(e) says the duty of the BOT is “) To appoint members of the Electoral Committee (Article 6.3(d)(v)), and conduct the election of the President as provided under Article 6.4 of this constitution”. Thus, the Electoral Committee (EC) is a subcommittee of the BOT.

next page >>