A Cross River State High Court sitting in Calabar has struck out the suit by Chief Tony Ani and other claimants with an order of interlocutory injunction seeking the removal of His Eminence Edidem Ekpo Okon Abasi Otu V as the treaty king and Obong of Calabar.
The court headed by Justice Elias Abua stated that giving such orders without any tangible reason would do “incalculable and avoidable damage” to the traditional stool.
The suit was filed by Etubom Essien Ekpenyong Efiok, Etubom Okon Asuquo, and Etubom Micah Archibong, who incidentally were members of the 15-man Etubom Conclave that assisted the Efik people in selecting and proclaiming Edidem Abasi-Otu V as Obong of Calabar in 2008, 2012, and 2013.
The suit came one year after the Supreme Court released judgment in favour of the Ekpo Okon Abasi Otu, in a suit brought before the court by former finance minister, Etubom Anthony Ani, who is also a contender seeking the sacking of Ekpo Otu Abasi Okon as Efik treaty king.
Other claimants in the suit are believed to have defected to Etubom Ani’s camp after reaffirming the election of Ekpo Okon Abasi Otu V on three different occasions in the last 16 years.
Sources close to the palace of Obong of Calabar stated that the claimants may have been fronting for Etubom Ani, who was declared by Ani’s camp as Obong-elect last year.
The suit No: HC/278/2023, has Edidem Abasi-Otu V, Ntiero Edem Offiong Efiwat, Edem Ita Essien Ededem joined the government of Cross River State and Attorney General as defendants.
In his ruling, dated June 25, 2024, Justice Abua rejected the claimants’ prayers stressing that “Application on Notice for an order of interlocutory injunction restraints the 1st defendant (Edidem Abasi-Otu) from presenting himself for selection or parading himself as the Obong -elect or Obong of Calabar or performing any such functions of the office of the Obong of Calabar is not granted.
“The office of the Obong of Calabar is so highly revered throughout this State and beyond that for an order of injunction to be made restraining anyone from occupying it.
The order must be manifestly shown to be deserved by cogent, positive and irrefutable evidence of witnesses that no one is left in doubt the firm ground upon which the decision is predicated.
“I believe that an incalculable and avoidable damage would be done to that office by this Court if it holds, at this stage, that either party is entitled to the reliefs and counterclaims placed before this court when no evidence has been tendered by either side.
“The facts of this case lend themselves more to the position that the status quo be maintained.
“It is in the light of the above reasoning that I will refuse the invitation extended to me to make the orders prayed for here and hold that the status quo be maintained.’’
The court however rejected the claimants’ prayer to restrain the 4th defendant (Cross River government) from “disrupting, hindering, questioning, harassing, intimidating the claimants/applicants and their associates, association and assembly.
