The recent position of the Ilaje Local Government Council of Obas supporting the Ajube’s surveillance proposal is unaccepted and the youths the area has condemned it vehemently.
Tale Iwatan, President of Ugbomokun Host Communities Youths Assembly in a statement made available to SECURITY MONITOR said that the submission of the monarchs at the palace of Amapetu, expressing collective support for the surveillance decentralization campaign championed by Bibopere Ajube and formally communicated to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is received with deep concern, disappointment, and outright rejection by the teeming youths of Ilaje.
The youths acknowledged respect and honor for the institution of traditional rulership but affirmed that this particular stance cannot be interpreted as reflecting the collective will, aspirations, or survival interests of the people most affected by oil exploration—particularly the youths whose livelihoods and future are directly tied to the environmental and economic realities of Ilaje land.
A particularly troubling aspect of the reported meeting is the role played by Oba Femi Ogbaro, who, as Secretary of the Council, is said to have clerked and formalised proceedings relating to oil exploration without the knowledge of Olugbo of Ugboland. Such a claim raises serious questions about procedural integrity, transparency, and respect for higher order in traditional institutions. It is difficult to reconcile how a meeting of this magnitude, addressing critical issues of resource control and community survival, could be anchored on a premise that appears inconsistent with verifiable reality. For the fact that Obe-Ogbaro, a very small community with less than 6 Baboom houses, does not have any oil well or installation, does not mean that Oba Femi Ogbaro should sell the whole of Ugbo Communities for a piece of silver. It is equally troubling that Oba Femi Ogbaro, in his capacity as Secretary of the Council, would lend his office to proceedings that appear to sideline the revered and historically recognised stool of Olugbo of Ugboland, the paramount ruler and prescribed authority of the Ugboland, and the chief landlord of oil-bearing territories in Ondo State. This deliberate insult and affront cannot just be left to be swept under the carpet.
At the heart of this pseudo meeting lies a fundamental contradiction. The Council of Obas rightly identified the dangers of over-centralisation, marginalisation of local actors, and the infiltration of unfamiliar elements into the waterways under the guise of surveillance. Yet, paradoxically, their endorsement of Ajube’s framework fails to address the most critical injustice: the continued exclusion of Ilaje indigenes from direct control and participation in surveillance activities within their own territory. Any model of decentralisation that does not distinctly recognise Ilaje as an autonomous operational zone, with its surveillance contracts managed by its own people, is not decentralisation—it is merely a redistribution of control away from the centre to another external actor.
It must be stated clearly and without ambiguity that Bibopere Ajube is from a non–oil-producing local government, with no oil wells, no pipeline infrastructure, and no petroleum installations within his community. Consequently, neither he nor his people bear the direct environmental, economic, or existential consequences of oil exploration. This fact is fundamental and cannot be overlooked. Assigning or extending surveillance authority over Ilaje’s oil-bearing territory to an individual whose community is not impacted by these operations is not only inequitable but fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of host community rights and environmental justice. Those who do not suffer the burden cannot be positioned to dominate the benefits or control the security architecture tied to those burdens.
The argument advanced by the monarchs regarding regional inclusion and state-level participation is valid in principle but flawed in execution. True inclusion must begin from the grassroots—from the host communities whose lands, rivers, and livelihoods have been devastated by decades of oil exploration. Ilaje is not just a geographical expression within Ondo State; it is a frontline victim of environmental degradation. Over 13 communities are currently facing existential threats due to coastal erosion, oil spills, and ecological collapse. Fishing and farming, once the backbone of the local economy, have been systematically destroyed. In such a context, any endorsement that allows external dominance over Ilaje’s surveillance space is seen not as leadership, but as a concession that undermines the collective survival of the people.
It must be stated unequivocally that the youths of Ilaje interpret this endorsement as a sale of birthright, one that they will neither accept nor legitimise. The right to protect, manage, and benefit from resources within Ilaje territory is not negotiable, nor can it be transferred through elite consensus without the consent of the people who bear the consequences of such decisions. The principle of generational equity demands that today’s leadership does not mortgage the future of its youth for temporary alignments or political convenience.
The legal framework governing the oil and gas sector in Nigeria further strengthens this position. The Petroleum Industry Act clearly prioritises host community participation and benefit, establishing that communities directly impacted by petroleum operations must be central to the governance and protection of oil assets. Similarly, the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act mandates the prioritisation of indigenous capacity, particularly within oil-producing areas. These laws are not symbolic; they are binding instruments designed to correct decades of exclusion and exploitation. Any arrangement that sidelines Ilaje youths in favour of external actors, regardless of their regional affiliations, is inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of these statutes.
Furthermore, the environmental realities confronting Ilaje reinforce the urgency of local control. The persistent violations of environmental standards, contrary to the objectives of the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency Act, have left communities vulnerable, displaced, and economically crippled. Surveillance, in this regard, is not merely a security function—it is a form of environmental stewardship and community protection. Those who do not suffer the consequences of oil pollution cannot be expected to prioritise its mitigation with the same urgency and commitment as those whose daily existence depends on it.
The Ilaje–Ijaw cooperation referenced by the Council of Obas is indeed commendable and should be preserved. However, cooperation must not be mistaken for subordination. A balanced and just framework is one in which each host community retains control over its own domain while collaborating with neighbours on broader security concerns. This naturally supports a decentralised structure where Ilaje Local Government Area indigene is granted full autonomy over surveillance contracts within its jurisdiction.
In conclusion, the position of the Ilaje Council of Obas, is an affront and betrayal of trust on the entire Ilaje youths, it does not align with the lived realities, legal rights, and future aspirations of Ilaje youths. It is imperative that all stakeholders, including traditional institutions, recognise that legitimacy in contemporary governance derives not only from authority but from justice, inclusiveness, and accountability to the people. The youths of Ilaje stand resolute: their birthright cannot be negotiated away, their suffering cannot be ignored, and their rightful place in the economic and security architecture of their land must be respected
About Author
