Delta Oil Discovery Sparks Land Dispute as Adhakpor Family Rejects Sterling Global Lease

The dispute centres on who has the authority to negotiate over the oil-bearing land, with family representatives threatening legal action and community leaders insisting that both family branches were included in the process.

A reported crude oil discovery in Okpe-Isoko community, Delta State, has triggered a dispute over land ownership, family representation and the authority to negotiate with an oil company, exposing divisions over who should control decisions concerning the potentially valuable property.

The Adhakpor family has rejected a purported land lease agreement allegedly entered into with Sterling Global Limited, insisting that those involved lacked the authority to negotiate or commit the family to any transaction.

However, the President-General of Okpe-Isoko community, Chief Fred Efeh, has offered a different account, maintaining that representatives of both branches of the family were included in a negotiation committee before some members withdrew over disagreements about its composition.

The competing positions have raised questions about the legitimacy of the negotiation process, the family’s internal land arrangements and the steps required to resolve the dispute before any proposed oil-related development proceeds.

Adhakpor family disowns purported lease agreement

In a statement, the Adhakpor family said it neither authorised nor mandated any individual or group to negotiate, sign or execute a lease agreement, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), or related document with Sterling Global Limited concerning its land.

The family described any such transaction undertaken without its express approval as unauthorised and unacceptable, arguing that no person could validly bind it to an agreement without a specific mandate.

It said its duly constituted and elected executives, alongside other recognised representatives, had been empowered to handle negotiations, engagements and documentation relating to the family’s property.

According to the family, the representatives derived their authority from a resolution reached at its general meeting on October 4, 2026.

The family consequently directed that all future negotiations, documentation, execution and implementation of any transaction involving the land must be conducted exclusively through representatives recognised by it.

It also said it did not recognise or accept any purported lease, MoU or related document entered into by people who lacked the family’s authorisation.

The family warned prospective investors, corporate organisations and other stakeholders to verify the authority of anyone claiming to represent it before entering into transactions involving the property.

It said the position was intended to promote transparency, accountability, proper representation, unity and peaceful relations while protecting the family’s rights and interests.

Family head alleges arrest over opposition to deal

The disagreement has also taken on a personal dimension.

Chief Ide Abade, head of the Adhakpor family, told Sunday Vanguard that he had been arrested by the community leadership after opposing the purported lease arrangement with Sterling Global Limited.

Abade said the family was preparing to seek legal redress, maintaining that people who were not members of the family had no authority to negotiate or enter into agreements concerning its land.

His position reflects the family’s broader objection to the composition of the negotiation committee and its insistence that decisions concerning the property should be handled by properly recognised family representatives.

The circumstances surrounding the reported arrest, including any official explanation from the community leadership, were not established in the available account.

The planned court action could become an important next step in determining the parties’ competing claims, particularly if the dispute concerns the authority to represent the family, the ownership of the oil-bearing land or the validity of documents reportedly associated with the proposed transaction.

Community leader says two family branches were represented

Chief Fred Efeh, President-General of Okpe-Isoko community, disputed the suggestion that the negotiation process proceeded without representation from the Adhakpor family.

He explained that the family comprises two branches, commonly referred to as gates, which hold different views about the ownership and use of the land where the oil well was reportedly discovered.

According to Efeh, one branch maintains that an ancestor had divided the land and that the portion containing the oil belonged exclusively to it.

The other branch, he said, believes that the benefits derived from the property, including palm trees and other natural resources, should be shared across the wider Adhakpor family rather than reserved for one branch.

The disagreement therefore involves more than the proposed oil transaction. It also concerns the interpretation of the family’s historical land arrangements and whether the disputed parcel belongs exclusively to one branch or forms part of a wider family inheritance.

Efeh said that when the oil exploration company approached the area, it followed the usual engagement process by visiting the traditional institution and the community.

He said he was present during the community-level engagement and that a negotiation committee was subsequently established with representatives from both branches of the Adhakpor family.

According to him, negotiations initially proceeded before some representatives withdrew, with disagreements over the committee’s composition contributing to the breakdown.

His account contrasts with the family’s insistence that the people involved in the purported transaction lacked the authority to represent it.

The central issue remains unresolved: whether the committee’s composition and mandate satisfied the requirements of the family members entitled to make decisions concerning the property.

Sterling Oil’s position remains unclear

The identity and position of the company involved have also become relevant to the controversy.

The report identifies Sterling Global Limited in connection with the disputed lease, while references to the exploration company include Sterling Oil Exploration and Energy Production Company (SEEPCO).

The relationship between the named entities and their respective roles in the proposed transaction was not clarified in the available account.

Efforts to obtain a response from Rotimi Bakari, SEEPCO’s community relations manager, were unsuccessful.

Bakari reportedly said he could not respond to the questions over the telephone and asked the correspondent to visit his office in Warri, Delta State, for further discussion.

Attempts to reach the Ovie of Okpe-Isoko, the community’s traditional ruler, also proved unsuccessful before the report was published.

Consequently, the company’s detailed position on the disputed agreement, the family’s objections and the reported negotiation process remains unavailable in the information provided.

A response from the company would be important in establishing whether a lease or MoU was executed, which parties signed any relevant documents, what authority the company relied upon and whether any development activity is planned for the site.

Why the reported oil discovery matters

Oil-related land disputes can become particularly sensitive because they combine questions of traditional ownership, family inheritance, commercial agreements and expectations about economic benefits.

Where a property is believed to contain commercially valuable natural resources, disagreements over who controls the land or represents its owners can complicate negotiations and undermine trust between communities, investors and operating companies.

In the Adhakpor case, the competing accounts raise several questions that will need to be addressed before the dispute can be conclusively resolved.

First, who owns the disputed parcel? The two branches reportedly disagree over whether the oil-bearing portion belongs exclusively to one branch or should be treated as a resource benefiting the wider family.

Second, who has authority to negotiate? The family says its recognised executives and representatives must handle all dealings, while the community leader maintains that both branches were represented on the negotiation committee.

Third, what documents, if any, were executed? Establishing whether a lease, MoU or other binding instrument exists, who signed it and what authority those signatories possessed will be central to assessing the dispute.

Fourth, what benefits and obligations would any agreement create? The parties would need clarity about the land involved, the nature of the proposed operations, the applicable compensation arrangements and the rights of those legally entitled to benefit.

These questions cannot be settled solely by competing public statements. They may require examination of land records, historical family arrangements, meeting resolutions, negotiation documents and other relevant evidence.

What happens next?

The Adhakpor family’s stated intention to approach the courts could move the dispute from community-level disagreement to formal legal proceedings.

If litigation is commenced, the court may be asked to consider questions arising from the parties’ claims, including the authority of the individuals involved, the ownership of the disputed land and the legal effect of any purported agreement. The precise issues would depend on the claims filed and the evidence presented.

In the meantime, prospective investors and other stakeholders would need to exercise caution when dealing with the property. Verification of ownership, representative authority and the status of any proposed agreement would be essential before relying on documents or commitments disputed by the family.

A transparent process involving the relevant family branches, properly authorised representatives, community leadership and the company could also help clarify the competing claims, although any resolution would need to respect the applicable legal requirements and the rights of the parties involved.

As of the information available for this report, no definitive resolution of the disagreement had been established, and the company’s full response remained outstanding.

For now, the reported oil discovery has become the focus of a dispute over ownership, representation and accountability. Whether the parties can reach a mutually acceptable settlement or turn to the courts will determine the next stage of the controversy surrounding the Adhakpor family’s land in Okpe-Isoko, Delta State.