19/07/2025
*THE RIGHT OF RESPONSE:*
RE: AGITATION FOR OBOLO STATE AND THE FACT OF THE IBIBIO OWNERSHIP OF THE ENTIRE AKWA IBOM ATLANTIC COASTLINE.
IN RESPONSE TO EMEM BENSON, ESQ AND SUNDAY AFIKO ESQ.
Messrs Emem Benson, Esq and Sunday Afiko, Esq, all Legal Practitioners, have attempted a socio-legal rebuttal of the well founded claim of the Ibibio ethnic group to the ownership of the entire Akwa Ibom Atlantic coastline from Imo River (Ikot Abasi River) to the Cross River, a space that conveniently hosts Ibeno and Eastern Obolo, two of the clans/LGAs seeking for Obolo State.
Their arguments against the Ibibio claim are long but without substance, legal or historical foundation apart from fiction and an attempt at propaganda and false application of legal principles. On a whole, these arguments amount to fallacies of argumentum ad ignorantiam, irrelevant analogy and non sequitur, the same, as set down here below and traversed.
However, I shall traverse only fundamental points raised by them in relation to the subject matter, and shall ignore extraneous and extrinsic matters.
I therefore respond as follows:
*(1) The claim of Oro (comprising of Okobo, Oron, Urue Offiong/ Oruko, Udung Uko and Mbo) having geographical contiguity with Ibeno.*
It must be known that contiguity is one of the constitutional requirements for the creation of a state in Nigeria. But unfortunately, the component LGAs seeking for Obolo State have no contiguity with each other and therefore lacks the first requirement for a state.
These local government areas are: Oron, Okobo, Udung Uko, Urue Offiong/Oruko, Mbo, Ibeno and Eastern Obolo in Akwa Ibom State, and Andoni in Rivers State.
Only the 5 local government areas above listed constituting the Oro Nation have contiguity. But Oro Nation has no contiguity with Ibeno. Ibeno has no contiguity with Eastern Obolo and Eastern Obolo has no contiguity with Andoni in Rivers State.
EVIDENCE OF LACK OF CONTIGUITY:
THE 1936 INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON IBENO CLAN:
(a) Ibeno, Eastern Obolo (then called Eastern Andoni) and Andoni (then called Western Andoni) in 1950 petitioned for the creation of Obolo Division out of the Calabar Province to the colonial government. The colonial government refused their request on grounds of no contiguity between the 3 groups seeking for Obolo Division. It was noted that Ibeno was made up of 7 villages clustering around the estuary of Qua Iboe River lying about 8 miles along the Atlantic coastline and about 2½ miles inland (pages 14 — 16). This shows that the entire Atlantic coastline from where Ibeno community ends, eastward to Mbo boundary on the Cross River belongs to other people. The 1918 Ntiaro case cited in item (III) below founds that this space between Ibeno and Mbo belongs to the Ibibio of Eket. At what time then, after the 1950 did Ibeno acquire the said land space so as to be geographical contiguous to MBO and by extension, Oro Nation today? When the truth speaks facts, fabrication and distortion takes a flight!;
OFFICIAL COLONIAL MAP OF EKET ENACTED BY THE COLONIAL GOVT. :
(ii)The 1913 official map of Eket District shows that the area above belongs to the Ibibio people of Eket. In that map the extent of Ibeno community is clearly mapped out. At what time then, after 1913 did Ibeno acquire the areas lying between Ibeno and Mbo, marked as Eket land on the said map?
(III) THE 1918 PRIVY COUNCIL JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NTIARO AND IKPAK V IBOK ETUKAKPAN AND EDOHOEKET (1918) 3 NLR 10 — 15: also found and declared that from the mouth of Qua Iboe River eastward to Child's Point on the Cross River (boundary with Mbo in Oro Nation) belongs to Eket people.
(IV) CROSS RIVER STATE LAW NO. 9 OF 1983: wherein pages A73 and A74 thereof villages located on the expanse of land lying between Ibeno and Mbo in Oro Nation was gazetted as villages in Esit Eket Local Government Area.
(2) LACK OF CONTIGUITY BETWEEN IBENO AND EASTERN OBOLO:
(a) The 1936 Intelligence Report on Ibeno above cited records that Ibeno lies 25 to 30 miles away from Eastern Obolo (then called Andoni or Eastern Andoni (see page 9 and 15). The said intelligence report also noted that this approximately 30 miles space belongs to people of a different stock. (See page 9; para 2). See below in item (b) to identify these people of different stock who owns the 30 miles space between Ibeno and Eastern Obolo.
(b) The 1932 Intelligence Report on Onniong and Nnung Ndem Clans says that in the approximately 23 miles between Ibeno and Eastern Obolo are the ancestral home of the Ibibio people of Onniong and Nnung Ndem clans (which are now in ONNA LGA. (see pages 18 and 20).
(3) LACK OF CONTIGUITY BETWEEN EASTERN OBOLO AND ANDONI IN RIVERS STATE.
Andoni LGA in Rivers State is one of the groups seeking for Obolo State despite the fact that they have no contiguity with Eastern Obolo in Akwa Ibom State.
(a) THE 1936 INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON IBENO; cited above, the colonial government noted that Eastern Andoni (now Eastern Obolo) lies about 10 miles (16 km) from Western Andoni (now Andoni LGA). (See page 14 and 15). The Colonial Government also noted that Eastern Obolo had recently lost a court case in which this area was declared as belonging to the Ibibio tribe. The colonial government was referring to the 1941/1943 consolidated cases often called "The Down Below Judgement", which gave the land space lying between Eastern Obolo and Andoni to the Ibibio people.
(b) THE AKWA IBOM STATE GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER (OFFICIAL DOCUMENT NO.2 OF 1995: Being Government decision on the Report of the 1995 Judicial Commission of Enquiry into the land dispute between Okorotte in Eastern Obolo and Ikot Ekong, Ikot Akpaden, Ikot Obio Ndoho, etc. in Mkpat Enin LGA where the Akwa Ibom State Government took a decision that certain Eastern Obolo villages, by the Down Below judgement, are settlements on Ibibio land. The said villages are: Okoroette, Amadaka, Elile, Kamkpa, Okoro Mbokho, Iko, Akpaden, and Atabrikang (See page 10; para.11.1. Government further noted and reiterated that the creation of Local Governments was not meant to create dissention between neighbors or DEPRIVE THE RIGHTFUL LANDOWNERS OF TITLE TO THEIR LAND. (See page 11; para. 11.1.1 of the White Paper. It must be noted that in law White Paper has the effect of a high court judgement.
(c) The 1926 case of Chief Eferekuma Aro v. Chief Sunday Jaja Pepple and Chief Akpan Udo Ekpo (1926) VIII 24 — 33: (consolidated suit): This was a case between Andoni tribe and Ibibio tribe and between the two of them and Opobo. The suit was about claims to parts of the land ( lying 10 miles along the Atlantic coastline) between Andoni and Eastern Obolo. In this suit, the West African Court of Appeal affirmed the supreme court judgement that the boundary between Ibibio tribe and Obolo tribe (Andoni) " IS EFFECTIVELY ON THE OPOBO RIVER", sometimes called Imo River (But most commonly known presently as Ikot Abasi River) (SEE pages 32 and 33 of the judgment. This judgement shall hereinafter be referred to as the Eferekuma judgment. At what time then did Obolo land cross the river and extend into Ibibioland?
(d) THE CELEBRATED JUDGEMENT IN SUIT NOS. C/21/1941 AND /8/1943) OF 1941/1943 (Down Below judgement): where Eastern Obolo people (in the judgment known as Andonis) laid claim to the land lying from Imo River (also known as Opobo River but now commonly called Ikot Abasi River), eastward to Qua Iboe River. (See page 81; para.2 of the judgment. But the court rejecting their claim and affirming the Eferekuma judgment held that Andoni (Obolo land) begins from Imo River westward while Ibibioland begins from Imo River eastward up to (and beyond) Qua Iboe River. (See page 85; para. 4 of the Eferekuma judgment).
*The court further found and declared that the Andonis (Obolos) who settled to the east of Qua Iboe River (today’s Eastern Obolo Local Government Area), did so as tenants of the Ibibio people upon annual payment of tribute of 100 large fishes to the Ibibio chiefs* . The court further held that an administrative structure set up in Eastern Obolo including a native court) did not change their status as tenants and settlers in Ibibioland. (See pages 85 — 86 of the judgment. The court also held that Ibibioland extended to the seaboard (Atlantic Ocean), and declared title to the coastal land called ‘Down Below’ or ‘Ikot Inyang’ as belonging to the Ibibios.
But today these tribute paying settlers are claiming that Ibibio Local Government Areas of Ikot Abasi and Mkpat Enin who were affected by that judgment and by are landlocked and does not reach the ocean! The insult went further to claim that Ibibio land is landlocked and does not wash the Atlantic coast!
(e) SUIT NO. 291/1946: BETWEEN ONIONG CLAN AND EASTERN OBOLO: where the high court ruled in favour of the Onniong clan of Ibibio, that Obolo is a tenant fishermen community in ONIONG coastal village called Ntung Akata. The court ordered the Eastern Obolo chief to pay 10 Pounds as the unpaid 2 years rent for settling on Onniong land. The payment was ordered to be paid to Chief Etok Abasok the village head of Ikot Akpatek and Chief Joseph Ekaette the clan head of Onniong. Onniong is a clan in Onna LGA. Ntung Akata is a coastal village on the Atlantic coastline. But today the same people whose tenant forebears lost that case, claims that Onna is landlocked and does not wash the Atlantic seaboard. The insult extends to the entire Ibibio land as not having coastline.
(4) EVIDENCE OF THE IBIBIO AS ANCESTRAL OWNERS OF THE ENTIRE AKWA IBOM ATLANTIC COASTLINE.
(i) In the MINUTES OF THE NATIVE AUTHORITY COUNCIL MEETING OF 1942: preserved in the Government Archives, it is documented that an Obolo group sought to extend fishing rights inland but was rebuffed by the Eket chiefs, who cited their status as tenants and vassals, not landowners. The British presiding colonial officer affirmed the Eket position, stating that: “Custom and history are in agreement. The land belongs to Eket. The Ibeno came later and owe allegiance.”
(ii) In the NTIARO CASE cited above, Pastor David Ekong, an Ibeno royal, chief and elite testified on 16/1/1916 that Ibeno were a mixture of slaves from Calabar. He also admitted that in the olden days Ibeno was a slave colony where the Eket people raided for slaves. Chief Ekong also admitted that the original Ibeno people came from Andoni and met the Ibibio Eket (who had been long established). The Ekets gave them trouble (disallowed them peaceful settlement) and Ibeno changed their location. (See pages 16 — 17 of the record of proceedings)
(iii.) CALABAR PROVINCE ANNUAL REPORT, (1918): Reports on land disputes involving Ibeno and Eket and affirmed that Ibeno was a tenant on Eket land for which they paid tribute to Eket chiefs.
(iii.) QUA IBOE MISSION ARCHIVES, BELFAST, UK— THE DIARIES OF REV. S. A. BILL, 1893 — 1997: Noted that the Ibeno were “sea rovers” permitted to settle on Ibibio land and subject to Eket authority. (_REF:_ QIM/L/IBN/DIA/1893.)
Rev. Bill was the founder of Christianity in Ibeno (Qua Iboe Church) in 1887 and lived in Ibeno for over 40 years till his death.
(v) COLONIAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION REPORTS, 1913 & 1918:
Notes: Defined territorial boundaries and acknowledged Eket chiefs as overlords of the coastal regions occupied by Ibeno.
(VI) ANTHROPOLOGICAL SURVEY OF SOUTHERN NIGERIA BY DARYLL FORDE, 1950, published by the International African Institute.
Notes: References Ibeno as recent arrivals, “linguistically distinct and politically subordinate” to the surrounding Ibibio polities.
(vii) Intelligence Report on the Eket Clan (1938):
Notes: Describes political relations between Eket and Ibeno, clearly stating tribute, allegiance, and non-ownership of land by the Ibeno.
(viii) W.A. PRICE, INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON THE TRIBES OF CALABAR PROVINCE, 1933 (official report by the District Officer):—
Reports that the Eastern Obolo (then called Andoni) were displaced migrants permitted to settle under Ibibio authority.
(ix) BRITISH CONSULAR COURT REPORTS: OIL RIVERS PROTECTORATE, 1885–1899. (Reference: British National Archives, Kew. Series FO 2.)—
Cites Andoni-Opobo conflict and the westward flight of Andoni groups into Ibibio territory where they settled under the authority of Ibibio chiefs, indeed as found and declared by several colonial court judgements earlier cited above.
(x) ETHNOGRAPHIC REPORT ON THE IBIBIO PEOPLE BY PERCY AMAURY TALBOT, 1912: —
Describes Ibibio political organization, land tenure, and their relationships with migrant fishing groups like the Ibeno.
(xi) COLONIAL OFFICER REPORT: P. A. TALBOT, "LIFE IN SOUTHERN NIGERIA" (1923):—
Noted that Ibeno are recent settlers who escaped war from the Andoni flats. Upon taking up residence on the Qua Iboe River, they were subject to, and paid tribute to Eket chiefs until the establishment of White Rule. (Pages 287 — 288).
(xii) QUA IBOE MISSION MAGAZINE: JANUARY 1963 EDITION (QIC Archives, Belfast, UK):—
Noted that why the Ibeno chiefs went to Calabar in 1886 to invite a White Missionary to come and settle at Ibeno was to have protection, and to escape continued payment of tribute to Eket chiefs. This move saw to the arrival of Reverend S
A. Bill to Ibeno in 1887 and the founding of Qua Iboe Church there that year.
*COUNTER TO THE LAW AS PRESENTED BY SUNDAY AFIKO ESQ.*
Chief Sunday Afiko in his treatise cited the Limitation Act of Nigeria, and argued that the period within which to enforce court judgement is 12 years after which the right to enforce would elapse had the judgment not been enforced by the judgment creditor (person whom the judgment favoured). The learned author, alluded that the colonial court judgements held by the Ibibios over the coastal territories is now nugatory, as, according to him, can no longer be enforced.
I respond as follows —
(a) The Limitation Act, even if it were to be applicable in Akwa Ibom State, is not applicable in this matter.
(b) The applicable Limitation Law of Akwa Ibom State, in the circumstances, is only applicable in a situation where a judgment was not enforced at all after delivery. But in the circumstances, the colonial judgments which awarded the Atlantic coastline to the Ibibio had since been enforced at the time of delivery.
(C) A visit to the villages situate on the lands awarded by the judgment would show that the Ibibios are in occupation of these villages as aborigines.
(d) There is a recent Government White Paper (AKSG Official Document No.2 of 1995), which affirms the colonial court judgements that these territories are Ibibio's and that the judgment had since been enforced.
2) THE LAW ON LONG POSSESSION:
The Law is that once a person/people have been in occupation of land for a continued long period of time of at least 12 years without resistance by the landowner, the trespasser becomes the owner of the land by prescription (adverse possession).
I respond as follows—
(a) The doctrine of long possession is only applicable to lands which have not been a matter of a lawsuit between the contending parties and of which there is a valid and final judgement on the merit.
In the case at hand, the Ibibio forebears had already obtained judgment against the Ibeno and Obolo forebears. The question of these lands ownership is therefore cought in the legal web of estoppel per rem judicatam (res judicata), and the law does not allow the Ibeno and Obolo to raise the issue of ownership again forever.
3)THE DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENCE:
The learned author argued that since the suit challenging the Official Map of Akwa Ibom State is pending in court, this means that nobody can act on the said map until determination of the suit. I must say that such reasoning is strange to our jurisprudence. I shall give a two-prong legal attack to this reasoning as follows:—
(a) LIS PENDENCE: is a legal doctrine which bars parties to a land case from dealing with the land until the suit is heard and determined.
However, the suit challenging the validity of the official map of Akwa Ibom State is not a land case but a case challenging the validity of an enacted Law, to wit; THE AKWA IBOM STATE MAP ESTABLISHMENT LAW OF 2023.
If the case were that of a land case where the doctrine of lis pendence applies, then that means that Mbo, Esit Eket, Eket, Onna, Mkpat Enin and Ikot Abasi who are parties to the suit should not deal with their lands again because the lands are subject matter of a lawsuit! However, the suit is not that of declaration of title to land, but is all about the legality or otherwise of the enacted map of Akwa Ibom State. The doctrine of lis pendence does not apply.
(b) Further more on the misapplication of the doctrine of lis pendence by the learned author, there is no law anywhere in the world that says that once an enacted Law is a subject of a lawsuit, the Law must be suspended or the enforcement thereof must be suspended pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Flowing from the foregoing therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the validity of the official map of Akwa Ibom State is a subject matter of litigation, it remains the law in force, and enforceable until such a time the court (most unlikely) would nullify it. As it is now, the National Assembly knows only the 2023 Map as the only enforceabable map of Akwa Ibom State, the same which is the only map of Akwa Ibom State known to, and seen by law, honoured and applied by all persons and Authorities.
A TOKEN OF ADVICE TO THE ORO PEOPLE:
Anytime the Oro truly wants a state of their own they may have to consider the 5 Oro LGAs which is their ancestral land, and look eastward towards Cross River territories with whom they share contiguity, and the Ibibio will never prevent them from leaving. But to start a fight which is not their fight by looking westward to coastal Ibibioland and hoping on settlers on Ibibioland for salvation, is a hallucination that will forever be resisted by the Ibibio of all generations.
__________________
MANFRED EKPE, Jnr., LLB (Hons)
18 July 2025.
