Indigenes of Obateru village, near Ughoton in Ovia North-East Local Council of Edo State, have distanced themselves from the planned installation of Mr. Afona Aimuamweran Otasowie, as Priest (Ohen) of Obagbeni village.
The Indigenes, in a petition to the Oba of Benin, His Royal Majesty (HRM), Oba Ewuare II, signed by the Uzukpogieva (second most elderly man), Mr. Emmanuel Uwagboe and Secretary, Mr. Kevin Okunzuwa on behalf of elders, claimed that there was neither a shrine nor a Priest (Ohen) in Obateru village to warrant such a position.
In the petition to Oba Ewuare II, the people appealed for the suspension of the planned installation, alleging that Otasowie, in connivance with some influential individuals in the palace, had manipulated facts to also deceive the palace and drag Obateru’s name in the controversy, which is currently a subject of litigation before an Appeal Court in Benin.
According to them, Otasowie and his cohorts, in their deceit and desperation to claim affinity to Obateru, a village they had earlier claimed does not exist, clandestinely chose another name, Obagbeni, to refer to the same Obateru village to deceive the palace.
The Obateru people, who described themselves as the original settlers of the village, with affinity to Ughoton, said only one Priest, (Ohen Okun), was recognisable even by the palace.
They appealed to the Royal father to investigate Otasowie’s deceit and sacrilegious activities.
“Arising from Otasowie’s alleged deceit and cunning maneuvering to misinform and mislead the palace on the position of the Priesthood, the elders and the people of Obateru, humbly urge the Oba to suspend his installation forthwith, so as not to drag the palace into disrepute.
“Your Majesty, may we quickly add that Obateru is in court with its neighbouring village, Evbuorokho, over the same contentious issue of its existence as an autonomous village.
“While a Benin High Court has given judgment in suit No.HOCK/45/2008, in favour of Obateru village, the matter is still pending at the appeal court in suit No. CA/B/609/2015,” the petitioners said.
