Prince Collins Oritsetimeyin Edema and Dokubo (left)
…asks Asari Dokubo to produce documentary evidence.
Sole Representative of The Olu of Warri to NNPC Limited/JV Partners, Prince Collins Oritsetimeyin Edema, has challenged ex-militant and maverick traditional ruler, Asari Dokubo to produce documentary evidence, showing that The Olu of Warri, Ogiame Atuwatse III receives 2.7 trillion annually from pipeline surveillance contracts, awarded by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPCL
Prince Edema, opined that Dokubo’s public image remains deeply associated with militancy, confrontation and an uncompromising style of political expression.
The Warri Monarch’s Aide, who gave the challenge in a statement dated Tuesday October 6 and titled; ‘Re: Allegation By Asari Dokubo that The Olu Of Warri Receives ?2.7 Trillion Annually From Pipeline Surveillance Contracts’ described Dokubo’s language as frequently categorical, provocative and insufficiently restrained.
According to Prince Edema, pipeline surveillance contracts in Nigeria, are not ordinary commercial arrangements, because oil and gas, constitute critical national asset, and the security of pipelines has direct implications for crude-oil production, government revenue, foreign exchange earnings and the wider stability of the national economy.
According to the statement of the Olu of Warri’s Aide, thus: “The attention of the Sole Representative of His Majesty Ogiame Atuwatse III, CFR the Olu of Warri to NNPC Limited, has been drawn to the recent public allegation by Mr. Asari Dokubo that His Majesty receives the sum of 2.7 trillion annually from pipeline surveillance contracts.
“Given the extraordinary nature of this allegation, its potential implications for the reputation of the Olu of Warri, and, more importantly, the strategic importance of pipeline surveillance to the Nigerian state, we consider it necessary to respond publicly and directly to the relevant institutions of the Federal Government.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the allegation that the Olu of Warri receives ?2.7 trillion annually from pipeline surveillance contracts is categorically rejected.
“We challenge Mr. Dokubo to produce the documentary evidence upon which this extraordinary claim is based. Asari Dokubo’s latest intervention cannot be divorced entirely from the persona he has cultivated over several decades. His public image remains deeply associated with militancy, confrontation and an uncompromising style of political expression. That history matters, because it inevitably affects how his interventions are received, particularly when they touch on sensitive questions of ethnicity, resource control, contracts and the politics of the Niger Delta.
“Dokubo is not simply another commentator entering a public debate. His political identity was forged in an era of militancy and armed agitation in the Niger Delta, and much of his public rhetoric has retained the combative character of that period. His language is frequently categorical, provocative and insufficiently restrained.
“That style may command attention, but attention should not be confused with credibility, and forcefulness should not be mistaken for evidence. This is where his latest intervention requires particular caution. A public figure with such a history has a responsibility to distinguish between allegation, inference and established fact.
“When statements are made about the Olu of Warri, Pipeline Infrastructure Nigeria Limited (PINL), Tompolo or other actors in a politically and ethnically sensitive environment, loose or unguarded assertions, can have consequences beyond the immediate argument. They can reinforce suspicions, revive old grievances and provide ammunition for people, who would rather interpret every disagreement through an ethnic lens.
“There is another dimension that should not be overlooked: Pipeline surveillance contracts in Nigeria are not ordinary commercial arrangements. Nigeria’s oil and gas infrastructure constitutes a critical national asset, and the security of pipelines has direct implications for crude-oil production, government revenue, foreign exchange earnings and the wider stability of the national economy. Pipeline surveillance therefore sits at the intersection of commercial interest, energy security and national security.
“That makes the allocation and execution of such contracts a matter of legitimate public interest. It also means that allegations concerning who receives such contracts, the basis on which they are awarded, how they are performed and whether they serve the national interest should be subjected to particularly rigorous scrutiny.
“This is precisely why the debate should not be reduced to who is louder, more influential or more militant.
“The higher the national-security implications, the higher the evidentiary threshold should be. If there are concerns about a pipeline-security arrangement, the relevant contracts, procurement processes, corporate records, government approvals, performance reports and regulatory documents should be examined. If wrongdoing is alleged, the appropriate institutions should investigate and establish the facts.
“And if no wrongdoing is established, politically charged allegations should not be allowed to substitute for evidence. The temptation should not be to dismiss everything Dokubo says, simply because of his militant past. That would be intellectually lazy. Equally, neither should his reputation as a fierce Niger Delta voice confer automatic credibility on his allegations. His claims must stand or fall on the quality of the evidence supporting them. His history also makes consistency an important question.
“Dokubo has, at different times, attacked Tompolo over the pipeline-security arrangement and the wider Gbaramatu-Itsekiri dispute, while more recently defending Tompolo against criticism and directing allegations elsewhere. Such shifts do not, by themselves, prove bad faith; political positions can change. But they do make it reasonable for the public to ask what has changed, what evidence underpins the new position, and whether the present intervention is being driven by principle, politics, personal alliances or some combination of these factors. The timing is also significant—not because timing, by itself, establishes political motive, but because the political environment is already charged.
“At such moments, provocative interventions can acquire consequences far beyond the individuals involved. And this is where the real danger lies. The Warri question involves communities with long and complicated histories of grievance and competition. Ijaw, Itsekiri and Urhobo relations require responsible leadership, not rhetoric that can easily be interpreted as provocation. At a time when stakeholders are working to preserve peace and prevent old disputes from becoming new conflicts, public figures who enter the debate carry an obligation to exercise restraint.
“The Niger Delta has paid a heavy price for politics conducted through confrontation and inflammatory rhetoric. It would be deeply unfortunate if old habits of militancy and unguarded speech were allowed to reopen ethnic anxieties that responsible stakeholders are trying to put behind them.
“The central question, therefore, is not whether Asari Dokubo can command attention. He plainly can. The question is whether the substance of what he is saying can survive independent scrutiny. Whoever makes the allegation should provide the evidence. Whoever is accused should have the opportunity to respond. And where national assets, oil revenues and matters of energy security are involved, the Nigerian state cannot afford to have policy and security decisions driven by political rhetoric, ethnic suspicion or the force of individual personalities. Pipeline security is ultimately about more than contracts.
“It is about protecting national assets, safeguarding economic activity and securing an important part of Nigeria’s economic survival.
“That responsibility demands facts, accountability and institutional oversight—not inflammatory rhetoric.”
