The Amanyanabo of the Source, Da Amakiri Tubo, Alhaji Mujahid Abubakr Dokubo-Asari, has rejected allegations that Royal Fouche Security Services operates as an “army of occupation” or is involved in land grabbing in Rivers State.
The traditional ruler described the accusations by the Udekama Council of Chiefs as “sad, vexatious and provocative,” saying the allegations unfairly dragged his name into a longstanding dispute between neighbouring communities.
Dokubo-Asari said he was particularly concerned because, according to him, the dispute predated his involvement and should not be presented as a conflict created by his activities.
His comments were reported by Vanguard, ThisDay and other Nigerian media outlets.
Dispute over Royal Fouche
The controversy centres on Royal Fouche Security Services, a security company associated with Dokubo-Asari.
The Udekama Council of Chiefs had accused the company of operating like an “army of occupation” and alleged that it was involved in activities connected with land grabbing.
Dokubo-Asari rejected those accusations and challenged those making them to provide evidence.
He said the allegations had caused him distress because they appeared to associate him personally with a dispute that had existed before his return to Rivers State.
‘I felt saddened’
Dokubo-Asari said he returned to Rivers State after an extended absence only to encounter allegations that, in his view, unfairly portrayed his activities and reputation.
“I felt saddened when I heard these allegations,” he said, according to reports.
He maintained that the claims were serious enough to require evidence rather than public accusations.
The traditional ruler’s response has effectively shifted the controversy from political and community allegations to a demand for substantiation.
A broader community dispute
The dispute is taking place against the backdrop of longstanding tensions over land ownership and boundaries in parts of Rivers State.
Land disputes can become particularly sensitive where traditional authority, community ownership claims, commercial development and security operations intersect.
In such circumstances, competing claims can quickly become politically charged.
The current controversy therefore goes beyond the activities of a single security company and touches on broader questions about land administration, community authority and the role of private security operators.
Call for evidence
Dokubo-Asari has challenged those accusing Royal Fouche or himself to produce evidence supporting their claims.
The demand places emphasis on due process and factual verification rather than accusations exchanged through public statements.
Neither the allegations nor the denials, however, amount to a judicial determination of the underlying land dispute.
The parties involved may ultimately need to rely on relevant land documents, community records, legal instruments and other evidence to establish ownership or control.
What happens next
The dispute is likely to remain sensitive unless the parties can reach a mechanism for resolving the underlying land issues.
For Dokubo-Asari, the immediate concern is to distance himself and Royal Fouche from what he described as allegations designed to damage his reputation.
The wider question remains whether the communities involved can resolve the dispute through established legal and traditional channels without allowing it to escalate into a broader security or communal conflict.