Only Proof Of Ownership Can END Akwa Ibom Forest Reserve Tussle – Lawyer

As the ownership dispute over the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve between two oil-rich communities of Ibeno and Ekid ethnic nationalities of Akwa Ibom State rages, the lawyer for Ibeno, Barr. Diamond Akpanika, has said only documented evidence would ease the prevailing tension for peace.

Ekid elders had lamented that church leaders (fathers of Faith), the traditional institution and other friends of Ekid, have distanced themselves from their cry for justice.

But responding,  Barr. Akpanika challenged the Ekid nation to come up with a documented proof of ownership of the large swathe of the forest reserve stretching across four LGAs in the the state, instead of resorting to “historical falsehoods, outlandish fabrications, and a desperate bid to rewrite history.”

Speaking in an interview yesterday in Uyo, the Akwa Ibom State capital, the veteran lawyer, pointed out that the resort to seeking help from the Church, the traditional institution and friends of Ekid, “means there is no evidence to back up their spurious claims over the forest.”

“Let Eket tell the world who they are and where they came from. If Stubbs Creek Forest truly belongs to them, where is the proof? Show us the receipts of royalties ever paid to Ekid by the government. Produce your documents or stop deceiving the people,” he stressed.

Akpanika, citing historians including Darin Ford (The History of Southern People) and Sir Udo Udoma (The Story of Ibibio Union), insisted that Ekid people migrated from Ibeno, before moving northwards, stressing that “no Ibibio ever lived by the Atlantic coast.”

He maintained that Ibeno, not Ekid, were the true coastal custodians who opened up the waterways for Portuguese and thereafter European traders, controlled markets, and received royalties from British traders.

“All archival records prove that royalties, whether £2, £30, or £132 as it then was, were paid only to Ibeno. None went to Ekid. If they dispute this, let them argue with good proof of documentation. I know, they cannot, because it does not exist,” he recalled.

The lawyer dismissed Ekid’s reliance on the Talbot map, reminding them that the only land Ekid obtained was 800 acres at Ntak Inyang “a speck compared to thousands of hectares belonging to Ibeno.”

He, therefore, accused them of being opportunistic, maintaining that Ekid People’s Union (EPU), their umbrella socio-cultural organisation was hastily formed to annex Esit Eket in a ploy to build a false front against Ibeno.

Akpanika also revisited the colonial ordinances of 1930, 1937, and 1955, which he said clearly recognised Ibeno ownership.

He said: “The public is now aware that Ibeno are the true owners of the Stubbs Creek, which has increased Ekid’s frustration to the point of inciting ‘Fathers’ of Faith’ in the State against Ibeno, after a failed bid to get the the support of the State Traditional Rulers Council.

“Ekid has also deployed other failed strategies, including sponsoring one princess Udoito, a female witch -doctor to conduct voodo power against the governor.”

Akpanika added that, beyond all these, the state government remains very firm in resolving the crisis by proposing a peace committee which, according to him, Ekid had rejected.