NEARLY SIX YEARS OF ABSENCE, SILENCE AND REPEATED WARNINGS: LETTERS PURPORTEDLY FROM THE EZE CONTINUE TO EMERGE IN OBI-MBIERI — WHO IS ACTUALLY SPEAKING?
By J.C. JAN
When the voice of a traditional ruler has been silent for years, the authenticity of every document purporting to speak in his name becomes a matter of public interest.
There is a point at which a document ceases to be merely a document and becomes a question of authority, authorship, authenticity and mandate.
The latest letter purportedly issued in the name of HRH Eze Elder Dr. J. N. Osuji, Eze-Ukwu 1 of Obi-Mbieri, must therefore be examined against the history that preceded it.
This is not a new controversy.
It is a controversy that has been repeatedly reported in the Nigerian press since 2023: the prolonged absence of the Eze; reports concerning his health and alleged incapacity; concerns over people allegedly speaking in his name; warnings about purported letters from the palace; questions concerning the use of his letterhead; and demands that communications attributed to him should be authenticated.
The question before Obi-Mbieri is therefore no longer simply:
“What does the latest letter say?”
The more fundamental question is:
WHO ACTUALLY SPEAKS THROUGH THESE LETTERS?
APRIL 2023: VILLAGE HEADS RAISED THE ALARM
On 18 April 2023, The Heartlander TV reported that the Heads of the villages in Obi-Mbieri had raised concerns over the prolonged absence of Eze J. N. Osuji.
The publication reported that some stakeholders had raised an alarm over what they described as attempts to “impersonat[e] the traditional ruler ... through unscrupulous letters.” It further reported concerns that people were taking advantage of the monarch's prolonged silence to misinform the community.
The significance of that report cannot be overstated.
This was not a question that first arose in 2026.
As early as April 2023, the community was already publicly confronted with concerns about communications allegedly being issued in the name of an absent traditional ruler.
The same publication reported that stakeholders insisted they would continue to support the Traditional Prime Minister, Professor KYRIAN C. O. NDIKOM until they could “see and hear from the traditional ruler HRH, Eze JN Osuji.”
The question therefore becomes:
If authentication was demanded then, why should authentication be unnecessary now?
APRIL 2023: THE LETTERHEAD WARNING
On 28 April 2023, Nigeria Watchdog published a report concerning the whereabouts and health of Eze Osuji.
The publication reported that the President General, Patrick Emeruem, and other stakeholders who should have been in communication with the monarch had neither seen nor heard from him for approximately three years.
But the most important part of that publication for the present controversy concerns the letterhead.
Chief Emma Iwuagwu was reported as saying that, in earlier years, when the Eze travelled overseas after informing the Obi-Mbieri-in-Council, he would make his letterheads available for necessary communication.
But the report then recorded the warning that:
“some dubious people who impounded the letter heads are now using them to misinform and mislead the people.”
There it is.
The warning was already on record.
Letterheads.
The Eze's name.
Communications allegedly being issued in his name.
Questions about who was actually speaking.
This was publicly reported in April 2023.
It is therefore difficult to understand why the appearance of another letter on the Eze's letterhead years later should be treated as self-authenticating.
A letterhead is paper.
Authority is something else.
APRIL 2023: “WE ARE TIRED OF BEING TOLD ‘EZE SAID THIS’”
The same Nigeria Watchdog report recorded the position of community stakeholders that the Eze should personally address the citizenry.
The reported words were striking:
“We are tired of being told by third parties that ‘Eze said this or Eze said that’ because it sends a dangerous and ominous signal.”
That statement goes directly to the heart of the present controversy.
If the community was already warned in 2023 about third parties speaking through the Eze, then every subsequent communication purportedly emanating from him ought reasonably to answer the same basic questions:
Who received the instruction?
Who witnessed it?
Who prepared the document?
Who signed it?
Who transmitted it?
Who can confirm that the Eze authorised it?
These are not unreasonable questions.
They are the very questions the community was publicly asking before.
MAY 2023: THE REPORT OF POSSIBLE INCAPACITY
On 9 May 2023, The Heartlander TV published an even more serious report titled:
“Latest On Obi Mbieri Saga: We Are Afraid, Our Monarch May Be Incapacitated.”
The report quoted High Chief Boniface Nwaigbo, described as a confidant and close associate of the monarch, as saying that the community had not seen or heard from the Eze for approximately three years and that stakeholders suspected he was either dead or incapacitated by illness.
But again, the crucial issue was not merely the health question.
The publication reported the allegation that people were taking advantage of the Eze's absence and:
“get hold of the Monarch’s letter head and write whatever that suits them”
The report further stated that such documents were allegedly being circulated to mislead the public.
That is a serious historical warning.
And it creates an unavoidable question today:
If people were publicly warned in 2023 that the Eze's letterhead could be obtained and used by others, what independent verification accompanies every subsequent letter purportedly issued in his name?
APRIL 2023: EVEN THE PRESIDENT GENERAL DEMANDED THE EZE'S PERSONAL VOICE
The Nigeria Watchdog report did not merely discuss the Eze's absence.
It reported that stakeholders wanted the Eze himself to come forward and address his people.
The reported position was that they were tired of relying upon third parties to communicate what “Eze said.”
That principle deserves to be preserved.
Because a community cannot permanently substitute:
“Eze said...”
for:
“Here is the evidence that the Eze personally authorised this.”
The difference may appear small.
Legally and institutionally, it is enormous.
APRIL 2023: THE SUPREME COUNCIL ALSO ISSUED A WARNING
On 14 April 2023, Nigeria Watchdog reported that the Supreme Council of Ndi Eze Mbieri had dissociated itself from a purported letter concerning the Traditional Prime Minister.
The Council reportedly stated:
“we shall not accept such letter ... except the traditional ruler, HRH Eze JN Osuji appears in person to inform us.”
The Council reportedly went further by warning the public about:
“the fraudulent activities of some imposters”
That publication establishes something extremely important for the present discussion:
There was a documented precedent for refusing to accept a communication attributed to Eze Osuji without personal verification.
Therefore, the question today is not whether personal verification is a reasonable concept.
It has already been demanded before.
The question is:
Why should the standard now be different?
JANUARY 2024: THE WARNING BECAME EVEN MORE EXPLICIT
On 6 January 2024, Silver News reported that stakeholders of Obi-Mbieri had met to address uncertainty surrounding the traditional authority of the community.
The publication attributed the Eze's unavailability to his “infirmities” and reported that the stakeholders had resolved to have Prof. Kyrian Onyeji Ndikom operate in an acting capacity pending the Eze's return.
But again, the most relevant part for this article concerns documents.
The stakeholders reportedly complained about an “unprecedented number of unauthorized letters and activities at the Eze’s palace” associated with the Eze's prolonged absence.
They reportedly went further and warned the public:
“to steer clear of any documents or correspondences purportedly emanating from the traditional stool of the Eze or his secretary”
That is perhaps the clearest historical warning of all.
The community was not merely asking questions.
It was reportedly warning people not to rely on purported documents emanating from the Eze's stool or secretary during his absence.
So when a new letter now appears in the Eze's name, the first question should not be:
“What does it say?”
The first question should be:
“What is the evidence that this particular document is genuinely authorised?”
2024: THE EZE WAS REPORTED TO BE ILL AND RECUPERATING
On 27 June 2024, Nigeria Watchdog reported a communiqué from the Mbaitoli Traditional Rulers Council stating that Eze Osuji had been away on grounds of ill health and was “still alive and recuperating fast.”
The same communiqué stated that the traditional rulers were allegedly in contact with him through phone calls and video calls.
But this development does not remove the central question.
Indeed, it makes authentication more important.
If communications could be made through telephone and video calls, then it should be possible to establish whether a particular written document was actually written or authorised by him.
A voice can be verified.
A video can be verified.
An instruction can be documented.
An authorisation can be witnessed.
Therefore, where a letter is disputed, the reasonable question is:
What evidence connects the Eze personally to this particular document?
DECEMBER 2023 AND JANUARY 2024: EVEN THE EZE'S RETURN WAS A MATTER OF PUBLIC UNCERTAINTY
A later 2024 publication reported that the community had remained in the dark concerning the Eze's whereabouts until December 2023, when his son reportedly informed some village heads and the town union that the Eze would not return to Nigeria.
The same report stated that the son subsequently produced a letter purportedly written by Eze Osuji directing him to rule the community in his place.
The publication reported that the letter could not be circulated because it was said to have been written to the son alone.
That episode is important.
Because again, the issue was not merely:
“There is a letter.”
The issue was:
Who produced it?
What did it authorise?
Who could verify it?
What authority did it create?
Was it capable of binding the community?
These questions have followed communications attributed to the Eze for years.
2025: THE SAME QUESTION RETURNED
On 25 April 2025, Nigeria Watchdog reported another controversy involving a letter purportedly written by Eze Osuji concerning the cancellation of a village-head installation.
The village reportedly questioned the authenticity of the communication, noting that it was written on the Eze's letterhead but allegedly lacked the “known seal of authority associated with the Eze.”
The publication reported that the village also questioned how the Eze, who had allegedly not been seen or heard directly by his subjects for almost four years, could have issued the particular communication.
The village reportedly concluded:
“This letter cannot be from the Eze we know.”
Again, whether one agrees with that conclusion or not, the historical point is unmistakable:
The authenticity of letters purportedly issued in the Eze's name was still being publicly questioned in 2025.
This is therefore not a new argument manufactured around the latest letter.
It is a recurring institutional problem.
THE PATTERN CANNOT BE IGNORED
Put the publications side by side and a striking chronology emerges:
April 2023:
Questions about the Eze's whereabouts and alleged use of his name.
April 2023:
Reports of people allegedly using his letterhead.
April 2023:
Supreme Council reportedly refuses to accept a purported letter without personal appearance.
May 2023:
Report of possible incapacity and allegations that people were obtaining the Eze's letterhead and writing directives.
January 2024:
Stakeholders reportedly warn the public about purported documents emanating from the Eze's stool or secretary.
2024:
Reports continue concerning his illness and prolonged absence.
2025:
Another purported letter attributed to the Eze is questioned because of its form, authority and provenance.
2026:
Another letter bearing his name emerges.
The question therefore becomes unavoidable:
HOW MANY WARNINGS ARE REQUIRED BEFORE AUTHENTICATION BECOMES THE FIRST QUESTION?
A LETTERHEAD IS NOT A MANDATE
A letterhead can be reproduced.
A name can be reproduced.
A signature can be reproduced.
A seal can be reproduced.
But authority cannot be created merely by reproduction.
That is why the community's previous warnings are so important.
If there had never been controversy surrounding communications in the Eze's name, the question might be simpler.
But there was.
It was reported repeatedly.
It involved the very things now at issue:
his absence, his letterhead, his name, purported directives, purported signatures and people allegedly speaking on his behalf.
As the proverb says:
“Once bitten, twice shy.”
Where the community has previously been warned about documents, prudence demands verification.
WHO WROTE THIS LETTER?
That question should be answered plainly.
Did Eze Osuji personally write it?
Did he dictate it?
Did somebody read it to him?
Did he approve every paragraph?
Did he sign it personally?
If another person signed it, who?
If another person prepared it, who?
If another person transmitted it, who?
What authority did that person possess?
Was that authority written?
Was it witnessed?
Is there any independent person who can confirm the Eze's authorisation?
And if the answer is yes:
Why not simply produce the evidence and end the controversy?
When the foundation is sound, examination does not destroy the building.
It demonstrates its strength.
WHO AUTHORIZED THE AUTHORITY?
This is perhaps the most fundamental question.
Suppose a person says:
“The Eze instructed me.”
The natural question is:
How do we know?
Suppose another says:
“The Eze signed it.”
The natural question is:
How is the signature authenticated?
Suppose another says:
“I am speaking for the Eze.”
The natural question is:
Where is the mandate?
And if someone says:
“This letter speaks for Obi-Mbieri.”
The question becomes even larger:
Where is the community mandate?
Because speaking as the Eze, speaking for the Eze, and speaking for Obi-Mbieri are not necessarily the same thing.
They must not be deliberately or accidentally conflated.
WHAT DOES THE WORD “I” MEAN?
There is also a philosophical question that cannot be ignored.
When a letter says:
“I, HRH Eze...”
whose “I” is speaking?
Is it the Eze himself?
Is it somebody speaking from his instructions?
Is it somebody interpreting his wishes?
Is it his representative?
Is it his family?
Is it somebody who merely possesses his stationery?
These are not interchangeable.
A man's name is not necessarily his voice.
A man's letterhead is not necessarily his authorship.
A signature is not necessarily proof of personal drafting.
A title is not necessarily a mandate to speak for an entire people.
Before the message is debated, the identity of the messenger must be established.
THE SIX-YEAR QUESTION
The chronology now deserves particular attention.
If the reported last public appearance of Eze Osuji was 28 November 2020, then the period approaching six years is not an ordinary absence.
It is a generation of community affairs.
Six years is long enough for disputes to arise.
Six years is long enough for leadership arrangements to change.
Six years is long enough for an entire generation of younger people to know their traditional ruler primarily through documents and reports rather than personal interaction.
And six years is long enough for the people to ask:
Where is the voice of their traditional ruler?
The question is not intended to ridicule illness.
It is not intended to mock age.
It is not intended to diminish traditional authority.
It is a question of institutional continuity.
If the Eze is absent, who acts?
If somebody acts, by what authority?
If somebody communicates for him, under what mandate?
If a letter appears in his name, who authenticates it?
These questions do not disappear merely because the document carries royal letterhead.
THE OLD WARNING IS STILL THE NEW QUESTION
The most remarkable feature of this controversy is that the community has already been warned about precisely this problem.
In 2023, reports referred to people allegedly taking possession of the Eze's letterheads.
In 2023, reports referred to purported directives issued in his name.
In 2023, the Supreme Council reportedly said it would not accept a purported letter without the Eze appearing personally.
In 2024, stakeholders reportedly warned the public to steer clear of purported correspondence from the Eze's stool or secretary.
In 2025, another purported letter attributed to the Eze was questioned on grounds including its authority and form.
And now, in 2026, another letter emerges.
What has changed?
Has the historical warning been withdrawn?
Has the authenticity issue been resolved?
Has the authority structure been formally clarified?
Has the person authorised to speak for the Eze been publicly identified?
If so, where is the record?
AUTHORITY SHOULD BE DEMONSTRATED, NOT ASSUMED
A traditional institution deserves respect.
But genuine respect for an institution includes protecting its name from misuse.
If the Eze authorised the letter, establish it.
If he personally signed it, authenticate the signature.
If he dictated it, establish that fact.
If somebody acted for him, establish the mandate.
If somebody claims to represent the community, establish the community authority.
There is nothing offensive about any of these questions.
Indeed, the easiest way to silence doubt is to produce evidence.
As the saying goes:
“He who asserts must prove.”
And another old wisdom is equally relevant:
“Truth does not fear investigation.”
THE CENTRAL QUESTION
The issue before Obi-Mbieri should therefore not be reduced to personalities.
The real questions are:
Who wrote this letter?
Who authorised it?
Who witnessed the authorisation?
Who signed it?
Where was it signed?
When was it signed?
Who transmitted it?
Who can independently authenticate it?
What authority does the person communicating on behalf of the Eze possess?
What authority exists for that person to speak for Obi-Mbieri?
And perhaps the most important question:
After years of absence, prolonged public silence and repeated warnings concerning purported letters, names and letterheads, why should this particular document be accepted without the same level of verification previously demanded?
BEFORE WE DEBATE THE MESSAGE, ESTABLISH THE MESSENGER
The people of Obi-Mbieri are entitled to ask these questions.
Not because they seek to destroy their traditional institution, but because they seek to protect it.
They want to know that the voice presented as the Eze's voice is genuinely his.
Not because they oppose tradition, but because tradition itself demands authenticity, legitimacy and respect for established authority.
Before we debate the message, establish the messenger.
Before we accept the signature, establish the signatory.
Before we recognise the authority, establish the mandate.
Before we accept the letterhead, establish who had lawful or traditional custody of it.
Before a document speaks for an entire people, establish whose voice is actually speaking through it.
For as the old wisdom teaches:
“A good name is better than riches.”
The name of the Eze is therefore too important to be casually invoked.
The authority of the traditional stool is too important to be assumed from stationery.
And the people of Obi-Mbieri are too important to be asked to accept disputed communications without asking who stands behind them.
The messenger must be established before the message can command the confidence of the people.
And where authority is genuine, verification will not weaken it; verification will vindicate it.
By J.C JAN
Post a Comment