Debunking the myth of Ibibio hegemonic claim

*A critical analysis of attempt at cultural, territorial expansionism in A’Ibom State

In the intricate mosaic of Nigeria’s ethnic diversity, Akwa Ibom State stands as a microcosm of plural identity.

The state’s founding vision, rooted in equity and mutual respect among its constituent nations, notably the Oro-Obolo, Annang, Efik, and Ibibio, was to create a federation of equals, not a hierarchy of dominance.

However, a persistent and troubling trend of Ibibio hegemonic ambition, manifesting in cultural appropriation, political overreach, and territorial expansionism, has threatened this balance.

This analysis exposes and critically debunks the sustained attempt by elements within the Ibibio political elite to impose cultural and geographic dominance over other indigenous nations of Akwa Ibom.

From the fraudulent remapping attempt of the state to the ongoing attempt at distortion of ethnic histories and the imposition of cultural symbols, the Ibibio project of assimilation and control must be confronted with historical truth, constitutional reasoning, and moral clarity.

The fraudulent remapping agenda: territorial hegemony disguised as “administrative reform”

At the heart of Ibibio expansionism lies the Udom Emmanuel map scandal, a brazen, unconstitutional attempt to rewrite the geography of Akwa Ibom State. Under the guise of administrative modernisation, the 2021 remapping project sought to extend the territorial limits of historically landlocked Ibibio LGAs of Eket, Esit Eket, Onna, and Nkpat Enin to the Atlantic coast.

This fraudulent cartographic manoeuvre was no innocent bureaucratic update; it was a deliberate plot to:

(a) Confer false littoral status on non-coastal Ibibio LGAs;

(b) Undermine the legitimate maritime identity of the Oro-Obolo (Oro, Ibeno, and Eastern Obolo); and

(c) Sabotage strategic coastal projects like the Ibaka Deep Seaport by relocating them into politically favoured but unviable Ibibio territories.

The timing of this remapping coincided with two developments that threatened the Ibibio monopoly:

(a) The Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021, which vests derivation rights and host community benefits in actual producing and littoral zones; and

(b) The Obolo State agitation, championed by the Oro-Obolo people seeking self-determination and recognition.

Faced with the risk of losing control over the coastal belt, the Udom administration resorted to executive and legislative manipulation—using state power to manufacture geography and history.

The remapping, devoid of federal validation and contrary to existing national cartographic records, stands today as a symbol of executive impunity and ethnic greed.

Cultural appropriation and identity distortion

The Ibibio quest to absorb others

Equally troubling is the continued cultural dominance of the Ibibio establishment, which over the decades has systematically sought to blur ethnic boundaries, especially by appropriating elements of Efik and Oro heritage.

Efik example

Despite clear historical and linguistic evidence that the Efik people are distinct in origin, culture, and migration history, certain Ibibio commentators have continued to advance the spurious claim that the Efik “emerged” from the Ibibio or Uruan stock.

This distortion collapses under scrutiny. The Efik trace their ancestry to Ututu (in Arochukwu axis), where they were already known as the Eburutu people long before any recorded association with Uruan.

Their early monarch, Edidem Ibom Eno, and his descendants, Abatim Ibom Eno and Atai Ibom Eno, anchor the genealogical memory of a people whose culture, language, and political organisation predate their sojourn in Uruan.

Thus, the argument that proximity or temporary cohabitation implies shared origin is intellectually hollow. By that logic, the Israelites should be Egyptians simply because they once lived in Egypt.

Oro-Obolo case

Even more dangerous is the fact that the Ibibio elements have sought to subsume Oro and Ibeno under Ibibio identity, an affront to historical truth.

Oro belongs to the Oro-Obolo ethno-linguistic continuum, sharing cultural, linguistic, and genealogical bonds with the Andoni and Obolo peoples of the Niger Delta. The Oro nation established its own political and cultural structure long before the formation of the Ibibio Union in 1928. Notably, the Oron Union was inaugurated in 1925, and the Obolo National Union as early as 1902, clear evidence that Oro-Obolo identity predated any Ibibio influence or organisation.

These facts dismantle the hegemonic narrative that portrays Oro or Obolo as “minor Ibibio branches.” The opposite is true: they are sovereign cultural entities within the Nigerian federation.

Institutionalising dominance: From traditional hierarchies to linguistic imperialism

Ibibio hegemony is not confined to rhetoric; it has been institutionalised through state policy and administrative design.

The recent but failed attempt to elevate the Oku Ibom Ibibio as the “sole first-class traditional ruler” and permanent president of the Akwa Ibom State Council of Chiefs, at the exclusion of other paramount rulers such as the Ahta Oro or Okuku Annang, violates both equity and constitutional federalism.

Every ethnic nation within the state deserves equal representation in traditional leadership, not subservience to Ibibio titles.

State policy at deliberate linguistic suppression

The adoption of the Ibibio language as the sole medium of instruction in all public primary schools underscores a deliberate policy of cultural dominance. Akwa Ibom State is far from monolingual—it is linguistically diverse, with Efik, Annang, Oro, and Obolo communities coexisting.

A truly fair and progressive language policy should uphold this diversity by promoting linguistic pluralism, not enforcing Ibibio uniformity.

These measures are not accidental; they are instruments of internal colonialism, designed to consolidate Ibibio influence and marginalise other ethnicities.

The dangers of hegemonic revisionism

Hegemonic revisionism is not merely offensive; it is dangerous. It breeds resentment, fuels ethnic mistrust, and undermines the unity of Akwa Ibom. Every forced assimilation erases a piece of Nigeria’s cultural mosaic.

It must be emphasised that the Oro-Obolo, Efik, and Annang peoples have each contributed immensely to the political, economic, and cultural evolution of the state. Reducing their identity to appendages of Ibibio pride is not only historically false but also politically shortsighted.

A state built on deceit, arrogance, and revisionism cannot endure. True unity can only rest on mutual recognition, cultural respect, and equality in all ramifications.

Time to reclaim the truth

The Oro-Obolo Nations, the Efik, and all non-Ibibio groups in Akwa Ibom State are not minorities to be assimilated; they are co-owners of the state. The fraudulent map must be nullified. Cultural encroachments must cease. Leadership of traditional institutions must rotate equitably among ethnic groups.

In education, policy, and representation, Akwa Ibom must reflect its diversity, not suppress it. The future of the state depends not on domination, but on justice and mutual respect.

Conclusion

The ongoing attempt at Ibibio hegemony stands exposed as an anachronistic relic of majoritarian arrogance. Major stakeholders in the Akwa Ibom project must understand that no amount of propaganda can convert historical fiction into truth, nor can any executive decree turn a landlocked LGA into a coastal one.

The Oro-Obolo, Efik, and Annang peoples must continue to assert their rights through lawful and intellectual means, guarding against every attempt to erase or distort their heritage. The destiny of Akwa Ibom lies not in uniformity but in the harmony of its diversity.

The truth, like the tide, cannot be buried; it will always resurface.

© Emem Benson, Esq

Legal Practitioner, Researcher, and Advocate for Cultural Equity

1st in November, 2025