OFFICIAL REJOINDER BONNY CHIEFS COUNCIL FINIMA OPU-OGBO

FINIMA OPU-OGBO RESPONDS TO THE PUBLICATION TITLED: “BONNY CHIEFS’ COUNCIL CONDEMNS ALLEGED THREATS TO DISRUPT TOBIN CHIEFTAINCY HOUSE FESTIVALS”

Date: 18 August 2026

By Engr. Tamunofiniarisa Brown

The attention of the Finima Opu-Ogbo, the age-long traditional and cultural unifying institution of Finima Community, has been drawn to a publication by Kristina Reports dated 17 August 2026, entitled:

“Bonny Chiefs’ Council Condemns Alleged Threats To Disrupt Tobin Chieftaincy House Festivals.”

The publication reports a statement attributed to the Bonny Chiefs’ Council alleging that “a section of the Brown Chieftaincy House” threatened to disrupt certain festivals and a masquerade display proposed by a faction of the Tobin Chieftaincy House.

For the avoidance of doubt, this matter is not about the Buoye-Omuso Brown House (BOBH).

The controversy which necessitated the Official Public Notice issued by the Finima Opu-Ogbo on 12 August 2026 concerns the purported formation, establishment and intended public operation of another Owu-Ogbo within Finima Community by a faction of the Tobin Chieftaincy House, notwithstanding the existence from time immemorial of the recognised Finima Opu-Ogbo.

That distinction is fundamental.

It is therefore necessary, in the interest of peace, historical accuracy, cultural integrity, public safety and the avoidance of deliberate or inadvertent misrepresentation, to respond to the publication paragraph by paragraph.

1. RESPONSE TO THE OPENING ALLEGATION OF “THREATS BY A SECTION OF THE BROWN CHIEFTAINCY HOUSE”

The publication opens by stating that the Bonny Chiefs’ Council condemned alleged threats by “a section of the Brown Chieftaincy House” to disrupt Tobin House cultural festivals.

This framing is fundamentally misleading.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo is not the Buoye-Omuso Brown House, nor can an institutional position taken by the Finima Opu-Ogbo properly be reduced to a Brown-versus-Tobin Chieftaincy House dispute.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo is an age-long traditional and socio-cultural institution of Finima through which members of the various Chieftaincy Houses historically interacted, deliberated, celebrated and maintained communal cohesion.

Its concern, expressly stated in its Official Public Notice dated 12 August 2026, is the preservation of the established institution of one Finima Opu-Ogbo and the rejection of any attempt to establish a competing or parallel Owu-Ogbo within the same Finima Community.

The distinction could hardly be clearer:

An objection to the unilateral creation of a parallel community institution is not an objection to the legitimate cultural existence of a Chieftaincy House.

Neither is it equivalent to prohibiting every legitimate festival peculiar to that House.

The public deserves to know precisely what is being disputed.

2. RESPONSE TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE MATTER AS A THREAT TO “TOBIN FESTIVALS”

The framing of this controversy merely as an attempt to disrupt “Tobin festivals” obscures the substance of the disagreement.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo has never asserted that members of the Tobin Chieftaincy House cannot legitimately celebrate cultural activities which are historically and demonstrably peculiar to their House.

The central question is different:

Can a faction of one Chieftaincy House unilaterally establish or operate another Owu-Ogbo within Finima where the recognised Finima Opu-Ogbo already exists?

The answer to that question cannot be avoided merely by describing the proposed programme as a “festival” or “masquerade display”.

If any proposed ceremony is being used to inaugurate, validate, advertise, consolidate or publicly represent a parallel Owu-Ogbo, then the existing Finima Opu-Ogbo has a legitimate cultural interest in objecting to it.

That is the issue.

3. THE MATTER IS ALREADY BEFORE A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION

There is another extremely important fact which the publication fails to place before its readers.

The faction presently asserting this purported parallel Owu-Ogbo has already taken disputes concerning this subject matter to the High Court of Rivers State, Bonny Judicial Division, in:

SUIT NO. BYHC/19/CS/2025

The existence of that proceeding is not speculative.

The matter has already been submitted to the judicial process.

That raises an obvious and important question:

If you have approached a court of competent jurisdiction for determination of your grievances, why insist upon physically implementing the very disputed cultural arrangement before those issues have been judicially resolved?

The rule of law cannot conveniently operate only when it favours one side.

A person who submits a dispute to court implicitly recognises the court as an appropriate forum for lawful resolution.

It is therefore difficult to understand why that same party should simultaneously insist upon creating facts on the ground which may touch directly upon the controversy placed before the court.

The responsible course is restraint.

The responsible course is patience.

The responsible course is respect for judicial process.

4. THE MATTER HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN TO THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

The faction has not restricted its recourse to the courts.

The matter has also been taken through security channels, including representations involving the Inspector-General of Police.

Accordingly, there are already recognised institutions of the Nigerian State available to every party:

the judiciary;
the Nigeria Police Force;
the Rivers State security architecture;
the Bonny Local Government administration; and
the recognised traditional structures of the Kingdom.

This again raises the question:

Why the insistence on proceeding unilaterally with a highly contested cultural activity whilst simultaneously invoking the court and the police?

If the purpose of going to court was genuinely to obtain lawful clarification, allow the law to operate.

If the purpose of approaching the Inspector-General of Police was genuinely the preservation of peace, allow the security authorities to perform their lawful functions.

Resort to these institutions should ordinarily reduce the temptation towards unilateral action.

It should not become one strand of a strategy running alongside provocative actions on the ground.

5. WHAT, THEN, IS THE URGENCY?

The repeated insistence upon proceeding with a disputed parallel institution, despite the existence of judicial and security processes, inevitably raises legitimate questions.

Why the haste?

Why the insistence?

Why attempt to create a fait accompli?

Why proceed with activities touching upon the disputed institution when the dispute has already been taken to court?

Why invoke security authorities on one hand whilst pursuing provocative unilateral actions on the other?

These questions cannot reasonably be dismissed.

They naturally raise concerns about whether objectives exist beyond the simple celebration of an ordinary House festival.

We do not prejudge those motives.

But the circumstances demand explanation.

Where conduct appears inconsistent with the peaceful resolution mechanisms already invoked by the persons concerned, the people of Finima are entitled to ask what exactly is intended to be achieved.

6. SERIOUS REPORTS CONCERNING THE ALLEGED MOBILISATION OF OUTSIDERS

The Finima Opu-Ogbo is also gravely concerned by reports presently circulating within and around the community alleging that persons connected with the proposed activities may have contacted or mobilised individuals from outside Finima for deployment during the proposed events.

More disturbing are allegations that some of those persons may be intended for violent confrontation with Finima youths.

These reports are extremely serious.

We therefore call upon the Inspector-General of Police, Commissioner of Police Rivers State, Department of State Services, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, Bonny Local Government Council and every competent security authority to investigate them immediately and impartially.

We emphasise:

No allegation of planned violence should be dismissed merely because it arises in the context of a cultural disagreement.

Equally, no person should be pronounced guilty without investigation and evidence.

That is precisely why the security authorities must act preventively and professionally now rather than after lives have been lost.

7. THERE MUST BE NO IMPORTATION OF VIOLENCE INTO FINIMA

Finima youths are not expendable.

No cultural programme, masquerade display, House rivalry or disputed institution is worth the life of a single son or daughter of Finima.

Any person contemplating the importation of armed persons, hired enforcers, political thugs or other violent actors into Finima should understand that such conduct would have nothing whatsoever to do with culture.

It would represent a grave threat to public safety.

The appropriate response to a disputed Owu-Ogbo is dialogue, evidence, customary inquiry and the judicial process.

It is not violence.

It is not intimidation.

It is not armed mobilisation.

And it certainly must never become bloodshed.

8. THE BONNY CHIEFS’ COUNCIL MUST THEREFORE EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION

Against this background, the timing and wording of the reported statement of the Bonny Chiefs’ Council are deeply concerning.

The Council’s statement, as reproduced by Kristina Reports, condemns alleged threats attributed to a “section of the Brown Chieftaincy House” whilst presenting the proposed Tobin activities broadly as legitimate cultural activities.

But where the underlying dispute concerns the legitimacy of a purported parallel Owu-Ogbo, such a declaration risks being interpreted as a determination of the substantive customary dispute before all sides have been heard.

That would be profoundly unfortunate.

Traditional leadership must be seen to stand as fathers to all.

It must de-escalate.

It must mediate.

It must hear both sides.

And it must never issue statements capable of being interpreted by any faction as permission to confront other Finima people physically.

9. THE CHIEFS’ COUNCIL MUST PUBLICLY DISSOCIATE ITSELF FROM ANY VIOLENCE

In light of reports concerning possible mobilisation of outsiders, the Bonny Chiefs’ Council should expressly state that:

it does not authorise, endorse, encourage or provide traditional cover for the use of force against any Finima youth or resident;

it does not approve the importation of thugs or violent actors into Finima;

its statement must not be construed by any faction as authority to enforce a disputed cultural claim physically; and

all parties must await lawful and peaceful resolution of disputed questions.

That clarification is now necessary.

Without it, there is a genuine risk that partisan actors could misrepresent the Council’s publication as institutional backing for confrontation.

Should violence subsequently occur after warnings have been raised publicly, serious questions would inevitably be asked concerning what every institution knew, what it did, what it failed to do and whether its public interventions reduced or heightened the danger.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo therefore calls for prevention now.

Not explanations after bloodshed.

10. RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM THAT THE ALLEGED THREATS ARE “UNACCEPTABLE”

The Finima Opu-Ogbo unequivocally condemns unlawful threats.

If any identifiable person has genuinely threatened violence, that allegation should be investigated and, if supported by evidence, dealt with according to law.

But allegations must be particularised.

Who allegedly made the threat?

What exactly was said?

When?

Where?

To whom?

Through what medium?

Were the remarks recorded?

Was a written complaint made?

Which security agency received it?

Collective accusations against “a section of the Brown Chieftaincy House” are not substitutes for evidence.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo itself should certainly not be transformed into the accused merely because it issued a lawful public notice asserting its institutional position.

11. RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM THAT TOBIN HOUSE IS ONE OF THE 34 RECOGNISED CHIEFTAINCY HOUSES

The recognition of the Tobin Chieftaincy House is not the issue raised by the Finima Opu-Ogbo.

The proposition does not answer the dispute.

The relevant question is not:

“Is Tobin a Chieftaincy House?”

The relevant question is:

“Where is the historical and customary foundation for a second Tobin Owu-Ogbo existing alongside the Finima Opu-Ogbo?”

Those propositions are entirely different.

Recognition as a Chieftaincy House does not automatically confer authority to create a parallel version of an existing community-wide traditional institution.

A House may be recognised.

Its legitimate House traditions may be recognised.

That does not mean that every new institution subsequently asserted by a faction within it automatically becomes an established Bonny or Finima custom.

12. RESPONSE REGARDING THE EREMINI AND FONGU MINI FESTIVALS

The publication states that the Eremini and Fongu Mini Festivals are scheduled for 22 August 2026.

The announcement of a date cannot determine the cultural legitimacy of every activity proposed to take place under the umbrella of those festivals.

The proper inquiry is historical.

Which activities are demonstrably ancient House traditions?

Which are recent additions?

Which activities relate to the disputed Owu-Ogbo?

Which titles, masquerades or institutional symbols are being newly introduced?

What evidence establishes their antiquity?

These are questions of history and custom, not newspaper declarations.

13. THE PROPOSED “GBULARU” MASQUERADE RAISES A PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CULTURAL QUESTION

The proposed masquerade activities raise an additional matter of profound concern to Finima people.

We understand that one of the masquerade identities proposed to be displayed or represented is to bear the name:

GBULARU

Within Finima tradition and genealogy as understood and preserved by the custodians concerned, Gbularu is remembered as the mother of Buoye-Omuso Brown and the legitimate wife of Buo, his father.

If that understanding is correct, then the appropriation of her name for a masquerade being advanced as an institution of a faction opposed to the existing traditional order is not a trivial matter.

It raises profound questions of:

ancestry;
matrilineal memory;
cultural ownership;
historical identity;
ritual propriety; and
respect for the progenitors of Finima families.

This matter cannot simply be dismissed as “Tobin culture” without establishing its historical foundation.

14. GBULARU IS NOT AN EMPTY CULTURAL NAME

Names within traditional societies carry history.

They carry genealogy.

They carry identity.

They carry memory.

Where Gbularu is identified in Finima tradition as the mother of Buoye-Omuso Brown and wife of Buo, using her ancestral identity within a newly asserted masquerade institution raises a legitimate question:

By what historical or customary authority has her identity been appropriated for this purpose?

When did that practice begin?

Where is its historical precedent?

Which generation practised it?

Which elders transmitted it?

Which recorded or oral tradition supports it?

These are the questions that deserve answers.

A declaration by the Chiefs’ Council that a Chieftaincy House possesses cultural rights cannot itself supply the missing historical evidence.

15. CULTURAL HERITAGE CANNOT BE PROTECTED BY DESECRATING ANOTHER PEOPLE’S ANCESTRAL MEMORY

The Finima Opu-Ogbo finds it deeply contradictory that the language of “protecting culture” should be invoked in circumstances where serious objections have been raised concerning the proposed use of the name and identity of an ancestral woman of profound significance to Finima genealogy.

Culture deserves respect in every direction.

One cannot insist upon the sanctity of one’s own asserted tradition whilst disregarding the ancestral memory that others regard as sacred.

Where disagreement exists about Gbularu’s historical identity or the customary use of her name, let the historical evidence be produced.

Let elders speak.

Let genealogies be examined.

Let credible oral and documentary traditions be considered.

But cultural appropriation cannot become legitimate merely because it has been scheduled for public performance.

16. RESPONSE TO “NO INDIVIDUAL, FACTION, GROUP OR SECTION OF ANOTHER CHIEFTAINCY HOUSE…”

As a general principle, no person should arbitrarily interfere with the legitimate cultural activity of another House.

We agree.

But the principle operates equally in reverse.

No individual, faction, group or section of a Chieftaincy House should unilaterally establish a competing community institution and then demand that every other person recognise it as established custom.

That too is unilateralism.

One cannot condemn unilateral objection whilst defending unilateral institutional creation.

The same standard must apply to everybody.

17. THE FINIMA OPU-OGBO IS NOT “ANOTHER CHIEFTAINCY HOUSE”

This point deserves repetition because the published statement appears to confuse institutional identities.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo is not appearing in this matter as “another Chieftaincy House”.

It is speaking as the existing Opu-Ogbo institution of Finima.

Accordingly, describing its position through the language of one House attempting to suppress another fundamentally mischaracterises the controversy.

18. RESPONSE TO THE ASSERTION THAT BONNY CULTURE IS THE “COLLECTIVE HERITAGE OF THE KINGDOM”

Yes.

Bonny Kingdom possesses a collective cultural heritage.

But collective heritage does not abolish the distinct histories of the communities and institutions comprising the Kingdom.

Finima possesses its own historical institutions.

The Opu-Ogbo is one of them.

Unity does not mean homogenisation.

Unity does not authorise duplication.

Unity certainly cannot mean that any faction may create a competing version of an existing Finima institution and secure legitimacy merely by invoking the wider Kingdom.

19. RESPONSE TO THE WARNING AGAINST “UNILATERAL INTERPRETATIONS”

We welcome opposition to unilateral interpretations.

Let that principle be applied consistently.

If a faction asserts that it possesses a separate historical Owu-Ogbo, let it produce the historical evidence.

If it asserts a right to use particular ancestral identities, let it demonstrate the customary foundation.

If it asserts that particular masquerades have always existed as Tobin traditions, let the historical chain of transmission be shown.

That is how customary history should be approached.

Not by declaration alone.

20. THE ROLE OF LATE SE-ALABO YOUNG SUNDAY TOBIN CANNOT BE IGNORED

The late Se-Alabo Young Sunday Tobin served as the Grand Patron of the Finima Opu-Ogbo.

His position remains enormously significant.

If the Finima Opu-Ogbo were merely a partisan Brown institution, why would such an eminent Tobin leader have served as its Grand Patron?

That historical reality supports the central proposition we have repeatedly made:

The Finima Opu-Ogbo has historically functioned as a unifying Finima institution rather than as the private cultural organisation of the Buoye-Omuso Brown House.

Its late Grand Patron’s position has, to date, not been replaced.

That fact deserves sober reflection.

21. WHY CREATE ANOTHER OWU-OGBO?

That leads directly to the central historical question.

If an Opu-Ogbo already existed;

if it united Finima people;

if the late Young Sunday Tobin himself served as its Grand Patron;

if that institution transcended individual House boundaries;

then:

What customary necessity suddenly requires another Owu-Ogbo?

And:

When did this purported separate institution historically exist?

Those questions require answers.

22. RESPONSE TO THE EXPRESSION “RESIST WITH ALL VEHEMENCE”

The Bonny Chiefs’ Council is reported as stating that the traditional leadership would “resist with all vehemence”, albeit within the bounds of law and traditional authority.

At a time of heightened tension, language matters.

Traditional leadership should be the first institution lowering the temperature.

Where reports of possible external mobilisation already exist, language capable of being interpreted as a call to physical confrontation should be avoided with exceptional care.

The people require mediation.

Not escalation.

23. A TRADITIONAL COUNCIL MUST NOT APPEAR TO PREJUDGE A MATTER ALREADY BEFORE THE COURT

The additional existence of Suit No. BYHC/19/CS/2025 makes restraint even more important.

Publicly available material identifies proceedings under that suit number concerning the Finima Opu-Ogbo dispute.

No traditional body should make pronouncements capable of prejudging issues which parties have themselves placed before a court.

Where legal proceedings exist, all parties should exercise appropriate restraint.

That is respect for the judiciary.

24. THE FACTION CANNOT SEEK JUDICIAL RELIEF AND SIMULTANEOUSLY CREATE FACTS ON THE GROUND

This is perhaps the most troubling contradiction.

A party cannot credibly say:

“We have submitted the dispute to a court for adjudication,”

and simultaneously act as though:

“We have already decided the controversy ourselves and shall physically implement our preferred outcome.”

That would undermine the very process invoked.

If the faction believes its claimed Owu-Ogbo is historically and legally sustainable, it should confidently present its evidence through the mechanisms it has already chosen.

There should be no need for provocative unilateralism.

25. RESPONSE TO THE CALL ON THE “SECTION OF BROWN HOUSE” TO EXERCISE RESTRAINT

The call is misdirected.

Restraint should be required from every party.

The faction asserting the new Owu-Ogbo must exercise restraint.

Those organising the disputed activities must exercise restraint.

Those objecting must exercise restraint.

Traditional institutions must exercise restraint.

Security agencies must remain impartial.

No one party should be publicly labelled as the sole potential aggressor whilst the conduct provoking the underlying dispute is ignored.

26. RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION THAT NO “FACTION” WILL BE ALLOWED TO ERODE CULTURAL HERITAGE

We agree completely.

No faction should erode established culture.

Therefore, no faction should be permitted to duplicate an age-long communal institution without demonstrating a recognised customary foundation.

Otherwise, Finima could eventually have:

two Opu-Ogbos;

two Nwantam Societies;

two Okonko institutions;

multiple competing traditional authorities;

and parallel versions of every cultural institution whenever disagreements arise.

That would not preserve heritage.

It would institutionalise fragmentation.

27. RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION TO SECURITY AGENCIES

The Finima Opu-Ogbo welcomes lawful and impartial security intervention.

Indeed, in view of the new reports concerning possible external mobilisation, we positively urge increased professional security attention.

But security agencies must understand the entire context.

This is not simply:

“Brown House wants to stop Tobin House from celebrating.”

The underlying dispute concerns:

the purported formation of another Owu-Ogbo;
the preservation of the existing Finima Opu-Ogbo;
disputed cultural practices;
the proposed use of ancestral identities including Gbularu;
ongoing judicial proceedings;
prior resort to the police hierarchy; and
allegations of possible mobilisation of outsiders.

Security intervention must therefore be balanced, preventive and evidence-driven.

28. SECURITY AGENCIES SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE REPORTED EXTERNAL MOBILISATION BEFORE 22 AUGUST

Given that the first publicly reported festival date is 22 August 2026, the reports concerning potential mobilisation require urgent attention. Kristina Reports states that the Eremini and Fongu Mini Festivals are scheduled for that date.

Security agencies should therefore determine before the event:

Who is travelling into Finima?

Who invited them?

For what purpose?

Who is funding them?

Where will they be accommodated?

Are weapons involved?

Are individuals with histories of violence involved?

Has anyone issued instructions concerning confrontation with Finima youths?

These are legitimate preventive-security questions.

29. EVERY LIFE MUST BE PROTECTED

No one should misinterpret this rejoinder.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo is not calling for confrontation.

Quite the opposite.

We demand that every life be protected:

Tobin youths.

Brown youths.

Other Finima youths.

Visitors.

Security personnel.

Elders.

Women.

Children.

Every person.

No traditional controversy justifies bloodshed.

30. THE CHIEFS’ COUNCIL CANNOT BECOME A SHIELD FOR ANY VIOLENT ACTOR

The Chiefs’ Council must therefore make it absolutely clear that its statement cannot be cited by anyone as authorisation to use violence.

If anyone has interpreted the Council’s intervention as permission to “enforce” a cultural programme by force, that interpretation must be rejected immediately and publicly.

The Council should expressly declare:

**No thug.

No weapon.
No violent enforcement.
No attack upon Finima youths.
No retaliatory attack.
No bloodshed.**

Anything less would leave dangerous room for manipulation.

31. RESPONSE TO REFERENCES TO MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES

The publication invokes Bonny’s multinational companies and their contribution to Nigeria’s economy.

Their economic importance is undeniable.

But invoking national economic consequences should not be used to transform a legitimate cultural disagreement into an insinuation of economic sabotage.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo has never called for interference with industrial operations.

We have called for peace.

And because Bonny is economically important, the case for preventing imported violence is stronger still.

32. RESPONSE TO THE SUGGESTION OF “WIDER ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES”

Economic stability is best protected by ensuring that local grievances are addressed fairly before they become crises.

The appropriate preventive measures are therefore:

dialogue;

historical investigation;

judicial restraint;

professional security intelligence;

and impartial traditional mediation.

Dramatic rhetoric alone will not preserve peace.

Fairness will.

33. RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL’S COMMITMENT TO CULTURE, CUSTOM, PEACE AND UNITY

We welcome any genuine commitment to those principles.

They are the same principles on which the Finima Opu-Ogbo stands.

But peace and culture cannot be selectively defined.

The culture of Finima Opu-Ogbo deserves protection.

The ancestral identity of Gbularu deserves respect.

The judicial process deserves respect.

The security process deserves respect.

Finima youths deserve protection.

And all Houses deserve fair treatment.

That is what genuine unity requires.

34. RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION THAT “ALL NECESSARY AND LEGITIMATE STEPS” WILL BE TAKEN

Legitimate steps are welcome.

But legitimacy requires due process.

Before any traditional body declares the disputed Owu-Ogbo valid, the following questions deserve answers:

Has Finima historically maintained one Opu-Ogbo?

Who historically constituted it?

Did it transcend individual Chieftaincy Houses?

Did late Se-Alabo Young Sunday Tobin serve as its Grand Patron?

When did a separate Tobin Owu-Ogbo first exist?

Who founded it?

Under what customary procedure?

Which Finima authorities recognised it?

What documentary or oral historical evidence supports it?

What is the historical basis for the proposed Gbularu masquerade?

When was Gbularu first used in that manner?

These are matters of evidence.

35. THE CENTRAL ISSUE THE PUBLICATION FAILED TO ADDRESS

The publication reduces a complex institutional disagreement to:

Brown versus Tobin.

That is inaccurate.

The actual institutional question is:

FINIMA OPU-OGBO VERSUS THE PURPORTED CREATION OF ANOTHER OWU-OGBO.

That distinction must be restored to the public discussion.

36. THIS IS NOT ABOUT BUOYE-OMUSO BROWN HOUSE

We repeat emphatically:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT BOBH.

The Buoye-Omuso Brown House should not be substituted for the Finima Opu-Ogbo.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo issued the Official Public Notice of 12 August 2026.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo rejected the purported parallel institution.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo called for peace.

The institutional identity must be respected.

37. A HOUSE’S CULTURE MUST BE DISTINGUISHED FROM A COMMUNITY INSTITUTION

Every recognised Chieftaincy House may possess legitimate traditions peculiar to itself.

Those may include:

songs;

ceremonies;

family commemorations;

festivals;

ritual practices;

historical celebrations;

and other inherited cultural forms.

But a community-wide institution is different.

The existence of House culture does not automatically create jurisdiction to duplicate a community institution.

That is the conceptual error underlying much of the present argument.

38. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LATE SE-ALABO YOUNG SUNDAY TOBIN

Again, history supplies a compelling illustration.

The late Se-Alabo Young Sunday Tobin served as Grand Patron of the Finima Opu-Ogbo.

Therefore, the Finima Opu-Ogbo cannot reasonably be described as some recent Brown mechanism designed against Tobin.

A prominent Tobin leader occupied one of its most distinguished positions.

That fact must form part of every honest discussion of this controversy.

39. THE QUESTION TO THE TOBIN FACTION IS SIMPLE

If your claimed Owu-Ogbo is ancient:

Show its history.

If its masquerades are ancient:

Show their history.

If Gbularu belongs historically to that masquerade tradition:

Show the history.

If a separate institution existed alongside Finima Opu-Ogbo:

Show when, where and how.

If the evidence exists, let it be presented.

History does not need intimidation.

Truth does not need thugs.

Culture does not need bloodshed.

40. CALL ON KRISTINA REPORTS

We respectfully call upon Kristina Reports to correct the misleading institutional framing of its publication.

The report should make clear that:

the Official Public Notice of 12 August 2026 was issued by the Finima Opu-Ogbo;

the controversy concerns the alleged creation of another Owu-Ogbo;

it is not simply a Buoye-Omuso Brown House campaign against Tobin House festivals;

judicial proceedings concerning the wider dispute exist under BYHC/19/CS/2025; and

the public deserves the full historical and institutional context.

Responsible journalism requires precision.

41. CALL ON THE BONNY CHIEFS’ COUNCIL

The Finima Opu-Ogbo respectfully calls upon the Bonny Chiefs’ Council to convene an impartial process involving the recognised custodians of Finima’s institutions.

The Council should seek answers to the historical questions rather than prematurely endorsing one narrative.

Most importantly, it should publicly instruct all factions to avoid force.

42. CALL ON THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

Considering the history of representations already made to the police hierarchy and the current reports regarding possible mobilisation of outsiders, we respectfully call upon the Inspector-General of Police to ensure impartial intelligence gathering and preventive security measures.

No side should be permitted to misuse police authority.

No side should be permitted to import violence.

And every allegation should be investigated on evidence.

43. CALL ON THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, RIVERS STATE

We similarly call upon the Commissioner of Police to ensure that officers deployed to Bonny and Finima understand that their responsibility is to protect everyone, not to enforce one faction’s interpretation of custom.

Operational impartiality is essential.

44. CALL ON THE EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF BONNY LGA

We reiterate the appreciation contained in our Official Public Notice of 12 August 2026 to Amasenibo Abinye Blessing Pepple, Executive Chairman of Bonny Local Government Area, for his commitment to peace, security, cultural preservation and good governance.

We urge him to continue exercising even-handed leadership and urgently bring all stakeholders together before provocative conduct produces irreversible consequences.

45. CALL ON TOBIN ELDERS AND RESPONSIBLE MEMBERS

This matter should not be regarded as a contest requiring victory at all costs.

We appeal to responsible Tobin elders and sons and daughters of Tobin House to consider carefully whether the insistence upon the disputed parallel Owu-Ogbo is worth risking the historic relationship among Finima families.

There remains ample opportunity for dialogue.

There remains ample opportunity for history to speak.

There remains ample opportunity for the court to perform its constitutional function.

46. CALL ON FINIMA YOUTHS

We equally call upon Finima youths:

Remain peaceful.

Do not take the law into your own hands.

Do not respond to provocation with violence.

Do not carry weapons.

Do not attack visitors.

Document anything suspicious.

Report credible threats to lawful security authorities.

Protect yourselves through lawful means.

Finima needs its youths alive.

47. NO CULTURAL DISAGREEMENT IS WORTH A HUMAN LIFE

Let this be understood by everybody.

If blood is shed over this controversy, no masquerade will restore the dead.

No judgment will restore the dead.

No apology will restore the dead.

No Chieftaincy House will emerge victorious from the grave of Finima youths.

Therefore, everyone who possesses influence must use it now for peace.

48. OUR FINAL QUESTIONS

To those insisting upon the purported parallel Owu-Ogbo, we ask:

If the matter is already in court, why the insistence?

If the Inspector-General of Police has already been approached, why the insistence?

If the intention is merely an ordinary House festival, why attach the disputed Owu-Ogbo identity?

If Gbularu is historically part of the claimed masquerade tradition, where is the evidence?

If a separate Owu-Ogbo historically existed, when was it established?

If peace is genuinely desired, why not await peaceful resolution?

These questions deserve answers.

49. FINAL POSITION OF THE FINIMA OPU-OGBO

For the avoidance of doubt:

This is not a Buoye-Omuso Brown House matter.

It is an institutional matter involving the Finima Opu-Ogbo and the purported formation of another Owu-Ogbo within Finima.

The Finima Opu-Ogbo recognises the legitimate right of every Chieftaincy House to preserve genuine inherited House traditions.

That right does not automatically include a right to duplicate an age-long communal institution.

The late Se-Alabo Young Sunday Tobin’s service as Grand Patron of Finima Opu-Ogbo remains powerful evidence of the institution’s historically inclusive character.

The dispute has already entered the judicial process through Suit No. BYHC/19/CS/2025.

Security authorities, including the police hierarchy, have already been engaged in relation to the wider controversy.

Those facts make unilateral physical implementation unnecessary and potentially provocative.

Reports concerning possible external mobilisation must be investigated urgently.

The Bonny Chiefs’ Council should publicly dissociate itself from any resort to violence and ensure that nobody interprets its statement as permission to attack Finima youths.

The historical and genealogical significance of Gbularu, remembered as the mother of Buoye-Omuso Brown and legitimate wife of Buo, deserves proper cultural examination and respect.

No masquerade display should become an instrument for desecrating ancestral memory.

No disputed cultural institution should become an excuse for bloodshed.

No traditional pronouncement should become a licence for violence.

No faction should place itself above the court.

No faction should place itself above established tradition.

And no life should be sacrificed on the altar of a cultural controversy.