By Charles Pemu 
BENIN CITY – Amidst a brewing “cool war” in Warri, Delta State, the Assistant Inspector-General of Police (AIG) Zone 5 Headquarters, Salman-Dogo Garba, has issued an unprecedented ban: stakeholders from the Ijaw, Itsekiri, and Urhobo ethnic nationalities are now prohibited from referring to each other as “customary tenants.” While ostensibly a move to quell tensions, critics are questioning whether this bold directive is merely a superficial attempt to silence contentious language, effectively papering over deeper, unresolved land ownership disputes fueled by INEC’s proposed ward delineation exercise.
The AIG’s warning came during a high-stakes security meeting on June 19, 2025, convened in Benin City. Attended by a host of powerful figures, including the Delta State Commissioner of Police, local government chairmen, and representatives from all major ethnic kingdoms in Warri, the gathering’s stated aim was to prevent a breakdown of law and order reminiscent of the devastating 2003/2004 crisis.
However, the core of the AIG’s intervention—the outright ban on the term “customary tenants”—has raised eyebrows. This phrase sits at the heart of long-standing, volatile land ownership claims and historical grievances that have plagued the region. While the AIG declared “no difference between the Ijaws, Itsekiris and the Urhobos” and warned against “inciting and inflammatory statements,” observers are asking: can simply banning a term resolve a century of complex, often violent, territorial disputes? Is this a genuine step towards peace, or a convenient way to suppress the articulation of deeply felt historical claims, thus sweeping unresolved issues under the carpet?
The police intervention, initiated at the instance of Inspector-General of Police Kayode Egbetokun, emerged only after the INEC delineation exercise had already stirred up significant unrest. Stakeholders themselves acknowledged that the delineation “has not been finalised” and aggrieved parties were still expected to submit complaints. This suggests the root cause of the current “cool war” remains active and unresolved, casting a shadow over the pledges of peace.
While all parties at the meeting “sued for peace” and pledged to control their youths, the critical question remains: if the underlying land ownership questions, often encapsulated by the very term now banned, are not openly discussed and resolved through a transparent process, how long can this imposed “peace” last? The AIG’s stern warning that “anyone caught will be arrested and prosecuted accordingly” for “name-calling and social media protest” may ensure temporary compliance, but without addressing the deeper truth of the land contentions, Warri’s “uneasy peace” could merely be a prelude to future, perhaps more volatile, flare-ups.