By joshua 
The Esan Kingdoms and the Misrepresentation of Their Sovereignty: Correcting Historical and Colonial Miseducation
By Saintmoses Eromosele (SME)
*Introduction*
In the historiography of Edo State, a persistent misrepresentation—promoted by poorly informed individuals, certain historical revisionists, and postcolonial prejudicial voices—reduces the sovereign kingdoms of Esanland to “duchies” under the Benin Kingdom. This distortion, rooted in the colonial project of diminishing African sovereignties and reinforced by local misunderstanding, ignores the political, cultural, and military realities of precolonial Edo society.
*This paper seeks to:*
1. Clarify the structural and conceptual difference between Benin’s dukedoms (Enogies) and Esan’s autonomous kingdoms (Onojie).
2. Provide historical and anthropological evidence of Esan independence.
3. Address the linguistic and political origins of the mislabeling, exposing its colonial and postcolonial roots.
4. Call for the cessation of this practice in academic, public, and political discourse.
*Benin’s Dukedoms versus Esan’s Kingdoms*
Today, Benin operates a centralized monarchy under the Oba, with dukedoms (Enogies) functioning as administrative domains directly answerable to the throne. However, before the epoch of Obaship, Benin was headed by the Ogiamien—a title etymologically and conceptually aligned with Onojie in Esan. Both derive from Ojie, a term signifying monarch, and connect to the older Ogiso (“Ogie of Iso” — “King from the Sky,” not “Duke from the Sky”).
The term Enogie in contemporary Benin usage means “the one sent,” denoting a ruler appointed and delegated by the Oba to administer a territory. In sharp contrast, the Esan and ancient Benin term for king—Onojie, Ogiamien, Ojiso (Esan), Ogiso (Benin)—derives from roots meaning “the one who does wonders” (Ojiemwin in Esan; Ogiemwin in Benin). Historically, “Ojie,” “Oje,” or “Ogie” is the correct title for a monarch, not a subordinate official.
Esanland is a confederation of 35 independent kingdoms, each ruled by its own Onojie. These polities are bound by shared language, culture, and kinship, yet they have never been provinces under a Benin-style centralized authority.
*Indicators of Independence*
A tangible illustration of Esan autonomy lies in the application—or non-application—of Benin’s traditional laws. Within Benin City and its dukedoms, stretching up to Ehor (the boundary with Esanland), certain customary regulations, such as prohibiting the commercial roasting of yams in public, are rigidly enforced. Yet the moment one crosses into Iruekpen, the first Esan town from Benin, the scene changes dramatically: traders roast yams openly at Iruekpen Junction. This continuity of practice, unaffected by Benin’s prohibitions, reflects a separate legal and cultural jurisdiction—a daily performance of sovereignty.
*The Uzea War (1502–1503)*
Historical records and oral traditions memorialize the Uzea War, a decisive conflict between Onojie Agba of Uromi and Oba Ozolua of Benin. Far from a rebellion against a suzerain, the war was a confrontation between two sovereign states over control of lucrative cotton and palm oil exports from Ilushi at the Ologhodo (River Niger) port. Both monarchs perished in the conflict[^1][^2].
This war underscores two critical points:
1. Esan polities maintained independent foreign and economic policies.
2. They possessed the military capacity to engage Benin on equal terms.
The Uzea War remains irrefutable proof that Esan kingdoms were not administrative appendages of Benin, but self-governing political entities.
*Colonial Distortions and the “Big Chief” Narrative*
The colonial enterprise’s dismissal of African polities sowed the seeds for much of today’s postcolonial misrepresentation. In official British reports of the 1897 Punitive Expedition, Rear-Admiral Sir Harry Rawson and his officers rarely referred to the Oba as “king.” Instead, they used the term “The Big Chief”—a calculated linguistic demotion that denied parity between African rulers and European monarchs[^3].
The mindset behind this colonial choice of language is the same one some contemporary Benin revisionists unconsciously replicate when describing Esan monarchs as “dukes.” Just as the British could not imagine equating their sovereign in London with a ruler in “the bush of Africa,” some today cannot imagine granting Esan monarchs their rightful recognition as kings.
*Conclusion*
It is historically inaccurate, culturally insulting, and intellectually dishonest to describe the kingdoms of Esanland as “dukedoms.” The Esan kingdoms—founded on their own genealogies, legal systems, and diplomatic histories—were independent polities that at various times allied with, traded with, or fought against Benin. To correct this record is not an act of ethnic chauvinism; it is a scholarly duty to the truth.
Mislabeling Esan monarchs distorts the past, disrespects the present, and misinforms the future. It must stop.
*References*
1. *Jacob U. Egharevba*, *A Short History of Benin* (Ibadan University Press, various editions — first published 1936, expanded 1968). pp 28 – 30.
2. *C. G. Okojie*, *Esan Native Laws and Customs with Ethnographic Studies of the Esan People* (Benin City: Ilupeju Press, 1994 reprint).
3. *Sir Harry Rawson*, *Official Reports on the Benin Expedition of 1897* (British Government Blue Book).
4. *Philip Igbafe*, *Benin Under British Administration: The Impact of Colonial Rule on an African Kingdom 1897–1938* (London: Longman, 1979).
Dated: 11 August 2025
*Saintmoses Eromosele (SME)*
_Executive Director,_ *ONEGHE SELE FOUNDATION.*
_National President,_ *ESAN STUDENTS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA*
0 807 943 6049
talktosme@gmail.com