By: Ike Philip Abiagom
The recent article titled “Asagba Azinge and the Assumed Lordship of Anioma” written by Odozi Nwodozi paints an inaccurate picture of the respected Asagba of Asaba, HRM Prof. Epiphany Chibuogu Azinge, SAN,OON. It suggests that the revered monarch is working against the collective aspiration for the creation of Anioma State. This claim is not only incorrect but contradicts the very essence of the Asagba’s long-standing contributions to the Anioma cause.
For clarity and public guidance, it is important to restate the simple truth: Prof. Azinge is not opposed to the creation of Anioma State. His only insistence—which is fair, rational, and grounded in law and history—is that the geographical and cultural map of Anioma must be respected as the foundation of any state creation process. His withdrawal from chairing the Technical Committee was therefore not an act of sabotage but a demonstration of integrity, meant to avoid presiding over a process already threatened by distortions and misrepresentations.
The Asagba did not “resurrect myths” or introduce strange narratives, as suggested. Rather, he cautioned against redefining Anioma in ways that depart from its well-documented identity. His call for geographical accuracy is consistent with the principles used in past state creation exercises across Nigeria. Insisting on proper boundaries is not opposition—it is protection.
As a scholar, statesman and custodian of culture, Prof. Azinge has consistently championed the unity and upliftment of Anioma people. From his academic contributions to his international engagements, he has projected Anioma positively and defended its unique identity. It is therefore unfortunate to suggest that he is acting to undermine a cause he has supported for decades.
Dragging the Asagba’s marital ties into a serious constitutional discussion is not only inappropriate but dismisses his professional distinction, intellect and independent judgment. Prof. Azinge’s positions have always been guided by scholarship, law and cultural clarity—not by family politics.
The article attempts to reduce the Asagba’s role by setting him against other respected monarchs in Anioma. This approach is divisive and unnecessary. Anioma’s traditional institutions operate in harmony, with each throne representing its people honorably.
Prof. Azinge has never claimed supremacy over any monarch; he only seeks to ensure that the collective aspiration for Anioma State is built on truth and historical accuracy.
His Withdrawal Was an Act of Responsibility, Instead of forcing himself on a process already mired in controversy, the Asagba chose the honorable path—stepping aside to prevent further division. This is the conduct of a leader determined to safeguard peace, not disrupt it.
The Asagba’s call for proper geographical boundaries does not weaken the quest for Anioma State. On the contrary, it strengthens it, because any successful state creation effort must be founded on facts, unity and historical clarity.
In conclusion, the attempt to portray the Asagba as a stumbling block to Anioma State ignores the truth:
Prof. Azinge remains committed to the Anioma cause, but he refuses to compromise the historical and geographical identity of Anioma in the process.
His withdrawal from chairing the Technical Committee should be seen as an act of integrity—not betrayal.
Anioma’s greatness lies in truth, unity, and respect for its institutions.
On these pillars, Anioma State will eventually be realised.
