Comrade Israel Joe, popularly known as TableBreaker, has criticised what he described as attempts to reduce the Niger Delta struggle to an exclusively Ijaw cause, insisting that the agitation was fundamentally about the collective rights, resources and development of the entire region.
In a strongly worded statement, Joe responded to critics who argued that people and communities that did not directly participate in armed agitation should not expect to benefit from its outcomes.
He described the argument as misguided, maintaining that the struggle against the exploitation and underdevelopment of the Niger Delta was never intended to serve one ethnic group or a handful of individuals.
According to him, the region’s natural resources belong to a geographical area inhabited by different ethnic groups, all of whom should benefit from the wealth generated from their land.
Joe acknowledged the historic contributions of Ijaw activists and communities, particularly their direct confrontations with the authorities over resource control, environmental degradation and the perceived marginalisation of the Niger Delta.
He referenced the legacies of Isaac Adaka Boro and Ken Saro-Wiwa, alongside the roles he attributed to former governors James Ibori and Diepreye Solomon Peter Alamieyeseigha in the renewed political agitation that shaped the region’s struggle in later years.
He argued that while some groups engaged directly in armed resistance, other ethnic communities and political actors contributed through different forms of participation, advocacy and political engagement.
Joe stressed that recognising the Ijaw people’s contributions should not become a justification for excluding other Niger Delta communities from the benefits of resource ownership and regional development.
He also rejected suggestions that his criticism of the region’s present condition amounted to hostility towards Ijaw people or former agitators.
According to him, many Ijaw communities continue to experience severe hardship despite the region’s enormous natural wealth, with inadequate access to clean water, electricity, quality education and basic infrastructure.
He argued that the continued deprivation of these communities raises fundamental questions about whether the objectives of the Niger Delta struggle have been achieved.
Joe maintained that ordinary residents, including unemployed people and those living in remote communities, should benefit from the region’s natural resources regardless of whether they participated directly in the agitation.
He further expressed concern that some individuals who emerged prominently from the struggle may have become financially comfortable while the wider population continues to face poverty and underdevelopment.
The activist also raised questions about the relationship between former agitators, security agencies, traditional institutions, religious leaders and political authorities. He alleged that financial inducements and political alliances had weakened the willingness of some influential stakeholders to demand accountability over the region’s development.
These allegations were presented as Joe’s position and were not independently substantiated in the statement.
He argued that the region risks losing the collective purpose of its struggle if questions about resource control, environmental restoration, infrastructure and the welfare of ordinary people are dismissed as ethnic hostility.
Joe insisted that his criticism was directed at the persistent underdevelopment of the Niger Delta and the concentration of benefits among a limited number of people, rather than at any particular ethnic group.
He called for a renewed commitment to the original objectives of the struggle, arguing that the region’s progress must be measured by improvements in the living conditions of its people rather than the wealth or political influence accumulated by a few individuals.
He concluded that the future of the Niger Delta depends on collective action, accountability and a shared determination to ensure that the region’s natural wealth translates into broad-based prosperity.
His central argument is that the Niger Delta struggle should not be treated as the exclusive property of those who took up arms. Instead, its outcomes should benefit all communities across the region, while public debate about its achievements and failures should remain open to scrutiny without being reduced to tribal divisions.
