Urhobo Historical Society


By Dr. Emmanuel O. Ojameruaye1

A paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference of Urhobo Historical Society at PTI Conference Centre, Effurun, Delta State, Nigeria, October 30, 2004.

0.  I

Historically,  the Urhobo people are known to be one of the most hard-working and enterprising peoples in Nigeria, relying on their own human and material resources for sustenance and growth. Collectively, they had built community schools, earth roads, and town halls and awarded scholarships to deserving children. There were many vibrant non-governmental organizations (such as the Urhobo Progress Union, UPU) and community-based organizations and groups that initiated and propelled self-help efforts in Urhoboland. Because government (federal and regional/state) was “far” from the area, the people had to learn to “do-it-themselves”. However, over the past 30 years there has been a steady erosion of the spirit of self-reliant economic development in Urhoboland due to a combination of many factors, notably the growth in government, the perverse attitude to politics and the exploration and production of hydrocarbon (oil and gas) in the area.  Against this background, this paper examines the concept of self-reliant  development within the context of Urhoboland and offers some suggestions on how to promote and sustain self-reliant development in the area. Section 1 of the paper describes the concept of self-reliant development. Section 2 takes a look at the state of the economy of Urhoboland and some of the factors responsible for the dampening of self-reliance in the area. In section 3 we present some actions necessary to revive, promote and sustain self-reliant economic development of the area.

1.    Self-reliant Development

It is the natural desire of every economic unit (be it continental, regional, national, state, ethnic, local, individual, etc) to minimize its dependence on the resources of other economic units. In other words, a rational economic unit would strive to depend on its own (internal resources) for sustenance and growth and avoid excessive reliance on external resources. This however does not preclude the use or support of external resources. This natural tendency has found expression in economic development literature as “self-reliance” or  “self-reliant economic development”.  Thus, self-reliant economic development may be defined as that type of development that relies on the human and material resources of the economic unit whose development is the subject of discussion. In other words, it is development that relies on “internal” resources as opposed to development that relies heavily on “external” resources. Self-reliant development is not autarky; it allows for “external” support, but it is propelled and sustained by “internal” resources. Thus one of the common objectives you find in economic plans or blueprints of continental, regional, national and state organizations or governments is “to promote self-reliant developmeent."2. Even as these units pursue policies of self-reliance and strive to ensure “autonomy”, they allow for substantial external support. In fact, a fundamental conundrum of “self-reliance” is that in many cases external resources do “make a difference” thus challenging the “independence or autonomy” of the economic unit.  In fact, self-reliance can be viewed as a continuum that is bounded on the left-hand side by parasitism and on the right-hand side by autarky but which does not include both boundaries.  Thus we can talk of different degrees or levels of self-reliance; the farther an economic unit is to the right-hand side of the continuum, the more self-reliant it is.

It is important to note that neoconservatives as well as neoliberals subscribe to extreme view of self-reliance. They consider social welfare and social development to be the responsibility of local communities and social organizations, and the philanthropic sector – not of the business sector and the state. This position was pushed to its extreme in Chile from 1973 to 1989 with disastrous results, and with millions of people driven into poverty. The Chilean experience clearly demonstrated that without appropriate social policies and support from the state, communities and social organizations might not be able to help people rise above poverty and address quality of life issues.3

At the micro level the concept of self-reliant development is expressed in the principles of self-help. The dictionary defines self-help as “the act or instance of helping or improving oneself without assistance from others”. In other words, it is “do-it-yourself” (DIY). Today, there are very many self-help or DIY books, tools and other resources to assist individuals in doing a wide variety of things. In practice, however, there is hardly anything like DIY because some form of “external” assistance is usually required for an individual to improve himself. For instance, you may need to read a DIY book (written by somebody else) to be able to fix a problem (e.g. electrical or plumbing) by yourself. This is why economists take a more robust view of self-help as “helping poor and disadvantaged people to help themselves”. In other words, it is “assisted self-help” or “autonomy-respecting help."4 It is recognized that poor and disadvantaged people find it extremely difficult to improve their condition of living without outside help. Sometimes they even become “complacent with poverty”. In such a situation, external help or support can serve as a catalyst or provide the push for action against poverty or to improve condition of living, and even to sustain improvement actions.  In fact, self-reliance can be regarded as a “helper-doer” relationship or game where the “principles of self-help” are adhered to. These principles involve the following actions:

 1.   The outsider must make a positive difference in the living conditions of the doer (the helped), i.e. the impact of the helper must be seen as felt.

2.   The doer (the helped) must own and implement the program or plan of assistance.

3.   The outsider must see the world through the eyes of the doer and respect the autonomy of the doer.

4.   The help or support must not undercut the autonomy of the doer –too much help can make the helped lazy.

5.   The help must be for a limited period of time – long-term charity corrupts self-help and undercuts the capacity for development.

6.   The doer should be able to sustain or continue with the development process if and when the help stops or even terminated abruptly.

Many countries and groups have adopted the principles of self-reliance in promoting rapid development. A classic example is the Harambee Secondary School Movement in Kenya from the mid 1960s to the late 1980s. It was a spontaneous grassroots initiative to develop greater access to secondary school education than what the government could provide after the country’s  independence from Britain in 1963. The Harambee (or self-help) schools provided 2 to 4 years of formal secondary education. Although the Harambee schools differed slightly from one another, they shared some common features and were formed in three stages:

a)   Firstly (i.e. initiation stage), community leaders (including district education officers, community development officers and local teachers) created awareness in the local community on the need for a secondary school within the community.

b)   Secondly (i.e. organization stage), the community leaders defined participation criteria and funding procedures.

c)   L
astly (i.e. implementation stage), leaders of local work groups take charge of work teams and sustain commitment throughout the construction phase. Churches or other established groups are selected to manage the schools and to contribute financial while the day-to-day functioning of the schools was left in the hands of registered management committees, represented by the Head Teacher and Community Leaders.

Some of the Harambee schools were assisted by government and thus attracted government resources to local communities. The Harambee movement also helped to build indigenous community institutions that advanced local development. Thanks to the Haramabee movement, primary school enrollment in Kenya increased from 900,000 in 1963 to about 2,000,000 in 1973 while the number of government-assisted Harambee schools increased from 19 in 1964 to 1,142 in 1989. However, many of the schools had some problems vis-à-vis government schools in the cities. These problems included the use of lesser qualified teachers, higher student/teacher ratio, poorer facilities and poor performance. These problems notwithstanding, many communities and groups and the country as a whole recorded the significant progress in education in the period after independence that would not have been possible without the movement. In the early 1990s, the Government of Kenya took responsibility for all the Harambee schools, putting an end to the movement and to the dichotomy between government and Harambee schools.

There is no doubt that the current situation in Urhoboland calls for the (re)adoption of a self-reliant approach to development if we are to overcome some of the current maladies in the area.

2. The Political Economy of Urhoboland

Generally, the Urhobo people and their area can be regarded as poor and disadvantaged within the Nigerian polity. Although, the Urhobo people rank as one of Nigeria’s 10 largest ethnic nationalities,5 they are still a minority and it is fair to say that they have not had their fair share in the allocation of federal resources including appointments. They have never had any significant impact or influence in the allocation of resources at the federal level. Hence the area has suffered from relative neglect by the federal government. For example, although the area accounts for about 20% of electricity production by the National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) and about 8% of crude oil output, yet much of the area suffers from irregular power supply or have no access to electricity at all. There is no federal university and the few federal projects include the Petroleum Training Institute, the Warri Petrochemical Plant and the Delta Steel Company (DSC) Plant.6

When Urhoboland was under the Western Region (then controlled by the Action Group party) , it was also marginalized because the area was largely pro-National Council of Nigerian Citizen (NCNC) party. Before the creation of Delta State, the Urhobo people also had limited influence in then Midwestern Region/State and then Bendel State government. Therefore, with neglect by the federal government and relative marginalization by the regional government, the Urhobo people had to adopt self-reliant strategies of development. Thus in the period before and immediately after Nigeria’s independence, agriculture and industrial activities flourished in much of Urhoboland. The area was self-sufficient in food production, notably garri, starch, yams, plantain, banana, vegetables, fish and “bush meat”. It was noted for the production and export of rubber, palm produce (oil and kernel) and timber. There were several industries in Sapele, Oghara, Ughelli, Effurun and the Urhobo area of  Warri city. Open unemployment was hardly known. In the early 1960s, crude oil was discovered in parts of Urhoboland  (Kokori, Ughelli) and later in the 1970s and 1980s in  Sapele, Udu, Oghara and elsewhere.  Since then several oil production facilities have been established in Urhoboland. In the 1970s and 1980s, some important industries were established in the area including the DSC Plant at Aladja, Glass Factories near Ekakpamre, the NEPA Power Plants near Ekakpamre and Sapele, a number of breweries and beverage drink industries (e.g. Skol, Sparkling) and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) Petrochemical Plant at Ekpan. 

However, since the late 1980s, the area has witnessed a steady decline in agricultural, commercial and industrial activities and decline in entrepreneurship. With the creation of Delta State in 1991, the Urhobo people became the majority ethnic group in the state and have produced the two democratically elected Governors for the period January 1992 –November 1993 and May 1999 to date (i.e. about 6 out of 13 years of the State). Ironically, the creation of Delta state and the influence of Urhobos in the allocation of the states’ resources have increased dependency on the state government and dampened the drive for self-reliance. Since the past ten years, an increasing number of people now believe that the fastest, surest and easiest way of making money is through involvement in politics and securing of government contracts. The exploration and production of crude oil and gas in the area has also dampened the drive for self-reliance and increased dependency on oil companies, especially since the late 1980s. Many oil-bearing communities in Urhoboland now look onto oil companies to provide scholarships, to build schools, hospitals or clinics, roads and for cash compensation for acquired land or environmental pollution or oil spills.  Almost gone are the days when communities will come together, contribute money to build a school or town hall or award scholarships to deserving kids. Now it is either government or oil companies. Thus, since the mid 1980s, the spirit of self-reliance in Urhoboland has gradually given way to the spirit of laziness, idleness and dependency on government and oil companies. A significant number of enterprising and talented Urhobo men and women now troop to the offices of government or oil companies to literally beg for contracts. Many have moved out of Urhoboland to “greener pastures” in Lagos, Port Harcourt, Kaduna, Jos and overseas. The business environment has also become increasingly less conducive with increasing insecurity  (e.g. recent bank robberies in Sapele, Ughelli, and Abraka), disruption of economic activities by restive youths, growing extortionist activity of youths, difficulty in obtaining land for economic activities, lack of adequate infrastructure for businesses, difficulty in accessing business finance (for large, medium and micro enterprises) and movement (relocation) of existing industries and businesses from the area to safer haven outside. Some of the once flourishing industries are either dead or are dying or are in a state of suspended animation such the  DSC and the African Timber & Plywood (AT&P) company. Many oil-servicing companies have pulled out of Effurun.  In a sense, government and oil companies seem to have crowded out the development efforts of local communities and social organizations. In short, one can conclude that Urhoboland has moved farther to the left-hand side of the continuum of self-reliance.

As a result of the above factors, the economy of Urhoboland is currently in a very bad shape. There has been a steady and significant decline in agriculture – decline in both the production of cash crops (rubber, palm produce) and food crops as well as in home gardening, livestock production and fishing.  There has also been a sharp decline in timber production due to uncontrolled lumbering, use of wood for fuel and non-planting of replacement trees. The industrial base remains very weak. Many key industries are now moribund. Commerce is also and limited and weak with the steady decline in entrepreneurship. Traders from the area have to travel all the way to Onitsha and Lagos to buy their wares. Sapele port has since been closed down (and replaced by a Naval Base) while Warri port is now but a shadow of what it used to be due to conflicts in the riverine areas, general insecurity and activities of pirates and illegal oil “bunkerers” along the water ways. Even crude oil production, currently put at about 64million barrels a year or about 8% of national output, is likely to decline due to aging oil wells, community unrest and better offshore oil prospects. Tourism is very weak and almost non-existent. The security is worsening with frequent armed robberies and youth gansterism and extortion of property developers and businesses under the guise of “development levies”. At the same time there is growing reliance (dependency) on the state government (AGDS) and on oil companies (AGDO) while investment and interest by federal government remains very low. Finally, there has been a decline in the number and vibrancy of civil society organizations (CSOs)  in Urhoboland.

3. Strategies for Promoting Self-reliant Development in Urhoboland. <>In view of the gloomy situation of the economy of Urhoboland painted in the above section, there is an urgent need to take concrete actions to revive, promote and sustain self-reliant economic development in Urhoboland, i.e. development that depends on the natural, material and human resources of the area. In doing this, the support of both the federal and state governments as well as the business sector must be properly harnessed without creating over-dependency and reducing the capacity or drive for self-reliance in the area. Accordingly, we propose the following actions for self-reliant development of Urhoboland.

3.1  Promoting Vibrant Civil Society Organizations
<>Civil society organizations (CSOs) are defined as “an array of people’s organizations, voluntary associations, clubs, self-help or interest groups, religious bodies, representative organs, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), foundations and social movements which may be formal or informal in nature and which are not part of government or political parties, and are not established to make profits for their owners.7  In today’s world, CSOs play very important roles, including the following:

a)   providing space for the mobilization, articulation and pursuit of interests by groups;

b)   providing institutional means for mediating between conflicting interest and social values;

c)    giving expression and direction to social, religious and cultural needs;

d)    limiting the inherent tendency of governments to expand their control;

e)    urturing the values of citizenship;

f)     mplementing development programs and projects aimed at improving the quality of life of local people;

g)    acilitating communication between beneficiaries and donors, voicing community needs and building local capacity.

Of particular interest are community-based organizations (CBOs) and NGOs (advocacy and developmental types). In fact, NGOs have become key players in international development assistance. Over 20% of total overseas development assistance (ODA) to developing countries is now channeled through NGOs compared to about 5% in 1970-1988.

<>Urhobo leaders, elite and communities must mobilize to reactivate existing CBOs and NGOs and create new ones. Every village or community and “quarters” or “wards” in towns must have a Community Development Committee (CDC) to play some of roles outlined above. In addition, urhobo professionals, businessmen and those with “means” and “connections” should work together to form NGOs that can compete with NGOs from other parts of Nigeria in attracting development resources and projects to urhoboland. A cursory look at the spatial distribution of development assistance in Nigeria shows that they are concentrated in regions with vibrant NGOs (e.g. the West) and urhoboland belongs to one of the neglected area<>.8  It is also important for rich urhobo sons and daughters to imbibe the ethos of volunteerism and philanthropy and invest more in their local communities as was the case in the past. They can establish Foundations that can support community development efforts in their communities and throughout urhoboland.

3.2   Promoting Private Sector Investment in the Social Sector (Education and Health) <>Today there are no centers of excellence in education and health in urhoboland. In years past, Eku Baptist Hospital, Urhobo College, Government College Ughelli and the Government Trade Center Sapele used to be centers of excellence that attracted “clients” from all over the country. Today, they are no more. The only university in urhoboland, the state-owned Delta State University, Abraka, lack the resources that will make it a centre of excellence in university education. In fact, it is usually the second or third choice by many urhobo students who sit for the JAMB while urhobo parents who can afford it prefer sending their children to the new private universities in other states including the Igbinedion University, Okada. Similarly, many parents now send their kids to private high schools in Edo State and elsewhere. The same is true of health facilities. Urhoboland is dotted with some government hospitals and several small private hospitals and clinics that can hardly provide state-of-the-art medical treatment. Thus those who can afford it go outside the area to receive specialist medical treatment. All these have resulted in significant capital flight and brain drain from the area. Urhobo leaders, professionals and businessmen are therefore challenged to pull their resources together to establish centers of excellence in education (at least one private university and some high schools) and health in urhoboland. I strongly believe that such centres are economically viable. Given the amount of capital investment required, they can be established through partnerships (e.g. like the EKO Hospital in Ikeja) or through Joint Venture arrangements with government.

3.3  Promoting Private Sector Investment in Economic Activities <>Similarly there is an urgent need to promote private sector investment in economic activities by urhobo entrepreneurs. Although there are no data to confirm it, one may not be wrong to say that the level of urhobo investment in the diaspora is more than the level in the homeland. To be sure, many factors have discouraged investment in the homeland by urhobo businessmen. These include the poor security situation, the high cost of doing business, lack of or inadequate social infrastructure (electricity, water, public utilities), high cost and problems with land acquisition, youth disturbances, weak purchasing power, poor transportation network, etc. These constraints must be addressed by government and civil society organizations. Some of the specific actions that should be taken include the following:

a)     Setting up an urhobo Chambers of  Agriculture, Commerce and industry (UCACI).

b)     Reactivating agricultural development by restoring soil fertility; reactivating the production of rubber, palm produce, cassava, plantain and banana; establishing agro-based export industries such as cassava-processing and starch manufacturing factories, palm-oil and cake industry and fruit drinks/beverages industry.

c)     Reactivating the timber industry through re-planting of trees and halting indiscriminate lumbering and promoting alternatives to the use of wood as fuel.

d)     Reactivating the moribund industries in Urhoboland or transforming/re-tooling them into other types of viable industries (e.g. ATP Sapele, the breweries, the glass factory, rubber processing plants, salt factory at Ogharefe, the Delta Steel Company at Ovwian-Aladja).

e)     Setting up export processing zones in Sapele and Warri.

f)     Setting up of industrial estates, self-sustaining business development centers, business incubators and skills acquisition centers in major towns.

g)     Promoting small and medium-scale industries as well as micro-finance institutions.

h)     Transforming Sapele, Warri, Ughelli and Abraka/Eku to major commercial centres.

i)      Ensuring security and peace, e.g. through community policing to weed out armed robbers, and establishment of peace and conflict resolution committees.

j)       Ensuring easy and cheap access to land for property development, agriculture and industry, e.g. by halting disruptive/extortionist youth activities under the guise of “development levies."

k)    Improving transportation by developing an integrated transportation plan that will include the following.

Expanding/upgrading the Osubi airport (built by Shell Nigeria) from the status of an “airstrip” to a full-fledged domestic airport and ultimately to an international airport like that of Port Harcourt. This will make it possible for larger aircrafts (including cargo planes) to use the airport and thus reduce the high cost of flying to Osubi. It will also enhance tourism, commerce and industry.

Upgrading and continuously maintaining the road network in urhoboland. The Benin-Warri dual-carriage road  (expressway) should be completed as soon as possible The Warri-Port Harcourt Road as well as Ughelli-Asaba Road and Effurun-Agbor and Sapele-Eku Roads should also be expanded and dualized. There is also an urgent need to ensure security and safety along these roads.

Restoring urhobo inland water-ways.  Dredging the network of inland waterways in Urhoboland  to enhance water transportation and natural drainage and deal with the menace of water hyacinth.

Restoring Sapele Port and relocating the Naval Base, NNS Umolokun. Also establishing smaller ports or large jetties at Oghara, Eku, Abraka and along the major rivers.

<>xtending the Ajaokuta-Aladja railway line (at least the part of it in urhoboland land or Delta State) to several towns (e.g. Sapele, Oghara, Warri Port, Ughelli) for passenger and commercial traffic.9  Alternatively, new railway lines can be constructed. This will be very expensive, but we can start the planning now and it can be done over a long period of time. According to the Chinese adage, “a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."
.4  Formation of a joint Urhobo Investment Corporation

All the urhobo local government councils should work together to form a joint Urhobo Investment Corporation to manage pan-urhobo investments, similar to the Odua and Arewa/Northern investment entities.

3.5  Formation of a Pan-Urhobo Representative Assembly (PURA)

<> <>The establishment of an Urhobo state10 with committed and accountable leadership is a critical success factor in addressing the some of the problems of  self-reliant development in urhoboland. Since this may not happen soon, there is need for an arrangement that will galvanize some elected urhobo representatives and the organized private sector to form a body that will act as an all-urhobo “quasi government” to direct and guide actions that will ensure rapid and sustainable development of urhoboland. Members of this body should include the Senator representing urhoboland, elected urhobo members of the House of Representatives, State House of Assembly, the Chairmen of all urhobo LGAs, urhobo Ministers and Commissioners, the President-General of UPU and about ten other very important persons from the private sector and academia. The body should meet quarterly to review developments and take necessary decisions and actions that will ensure sustainable development in urhoboland. The body should be apolitical and could  set up committees to handle specific projects and tasks. Any urhobo person with requisite competencies can be appointed to serve in such committees.


In this paper, I have discussed the concept of self-reliant development and outlined how it can be promoted and sustained in urhoboland.  I have noted that while self-reliant development (or self-help at the micro level) means development that depends on internal human and material resources, it nonetheless allows for external support by government, businesses and external donors. However, the process must be initiated and propelled by the “insiders”. I also described some of the features of the economy of urhoboland and have noted the steady decline in the spirit of self-reliance over past 30 years. Finally, I made some far-reaching recommendations to remedy the current situation. The required actions outline in section 3 above involve civil society organizations in urhoboland, the elite and leader, government and the business community. In particular, the CSOs can lobby or put pressure on the appropriate arms of government to address some of those actions that are within the purview government, e.g. (g) and (k) above. In short, the required actions involve all stakeholders in urhoboland. It is only by working together that we can ensure self-reliant development of the area. We have no other land we can call our own even if we decide to remain in the Diaspora. Now therefore is the time to act to ensure self-reliant development of our homeland for the present and future generations.


1.    Aweto, A.O. (2000): Agriculture in Urhoboland. In www.waado.org

2.    Capfens, H. Ed 1999. Community Development Around the World: Practice, Theory, Research and Training.
University of Toronto Press.

3.     Darah, G. G. (2004): Urhobo and the Mowoe Legacy. The Guardian,
August 11, 2004.

4.     Eade, D (1997):
Capacity Building – An Approach to People-Centred Development. An Oxfam Publication.

5.     Fowler, A (1997): Striking a Balance- A Guide to Enhancing the Effectiveness on Non-Governmental Organizations in International Development. Earthscan Publications Ltd.

6.     Ojameruaye, E. (2004a): Deploying Oil Wealth to reduce Poverty in the Niger Delta region of
Nigeria: Lessons from the Chadian Model. www.nigerdeltacongress.com February, 2004.

7.     Ojameruaye, E. (2004b): The Essentials of Sustainable Development of Urhoboland in
Nigeria. Paper Presented at the 11th Annual Convention of UNANA, New Jersey, USA. September 4.

8.     Ojameruaye, E. (2002): Self-Help Principles in Community Development Practice. Unpublished Presentation Material.

9.      Sullivan, L (1998): Moving Mountains – The Princples and Purpose of Leon Sullivan. Judson Press.

1 Dr.Emmanuel Ojameruaye is on loan from Shell International to the International Foundation for Education and Self-help (IFESH), based in Phoenix, Arizona, USA.  He was Head, Community Development, Shell Nigeria, Warri Office from 1998 to January 2001;  Head, Government and Community Affairs, Shell Lagos Office (1992 –1995); National Consultant Economist/Statistician, National Data Bank Project, UNDP Lagos Office/Federal Ministry of Budget & Planning (1989-March 1992) and Lecturer in Economics & Statistics, University of Benin, Nigeria (1982-1989). He was also Secretary of the Nigerian Economic Society from 1987-1990.

2  For instance, one of the objectives of the Sullivan Plan for the Development of sub-Saharan Africa is “to encourage self-reliance through self-help efforts”, see Sullivan, L (1998). pp. 225-283.

3 See Campfens, H ed. 1999: Community Development Around the World, p. 457.

4 See Ellerman, D (not dated) Autonomy-Respecting Help: Rethinking Development Assistance Agencies. The World Bank.

5 The population of Urhoboland is put at between 1.5m and 2.5m (i.e. between 1.2 % and 2 % of Nigeria’s population) while the area is about 5,000 square km   (i.e. about 0.54% of Nigeria’s landmass). The Urhobo people however  constitute about 55% of the population of Delta State, making them the majority ethnic group in the state.

6 The are ongoing attempts to reactivate the DSC Plant which  has been moribund for many years.  Its Lime Plant is reported to have started production again.

7 See Fowler, A (1997). p. 8.

8 For instance, the Guardian of October 15, 2004 reported that the N68.4 billion (or 42 million Euros) grant from the European Development Fund (EDF) for  the development of the Niger Delta in the next four years will go Abia, Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Edo, Imo and Ondo states.  The project, tagged: Micro Project Programme 6, has the National Planning Commission as its supervising agency and will focus mainly on human and infrastructure development in the rural communities of its coverage area. It is ironical that Delta State (hence urhoboland) and Bayelsa State (the “core” Niger Delta states) are excluded from the program at this stage. 

9 The construction of the Ajaokuta-Aladja railway has shown that it is possible for the Nigerian government to expand the railway network in the country for both commercial and passenger traffic. Already the Odua Group is considering building an Ibadan-Lagos railway line.

10 In a recent article in the Guardian of August 11, 2004, Dr. G.G. Darah noted that the “ultimate trajectory of urhobo nationalism is to attain the status of an all-urhobo state in Nigeria