Ibeno Council rejects Ekid Union claims of Stubbs Creek Forest
The Ibeno Clan Council has dismissed claims made by the Ekid People’s Union (EPU) before the Akwa Ibom State Land Use Allocation Committee, describing them as distorted, misleading and capable of threatening peace, lawful governance and investor confidence in the state.
Speaking through its spokesman, Chief Udofia Okon Udofia, the council said the EPU’s presentation at the committee’s sitting in Uyo on January 16, 2025, was founded on what it termed historical revisionism, misinterpretation of the law and inflammatory threats against government authorities and legitimate investors.
Share this:
Ibeno Council rejects Ekid Union claims of Stubbs Creek Forest
Nkereuwem Effiong, Uyo
The Ibeno Clan Council has dismissed claims made by the Ekid People’s Union (EPU) before the Akwa Ibom State Land Use Allocation Committee, describing them as distorted, misleading and capable of threatening peace, lawful governance and investor confidence in the state.
Speaking through its spokesman, Chief Udofia Okon Udofia, the council said the EPU’s presentation at the committee’s sitting in Uyo on January 16, 2025, was founded on what it termed historical revisionism, misinterpretation of the law and inflammatory threats against government authorities and legitimate investors.
Chief Udofia stated that the Ekid People’s Union lacks any constitutional or statutory authority to claim ownership, control or veto powers over land administration in Akwa Ibom State.
He stressed that powers of attorney allegedly issued by private individuals or traditional institutions cannot override the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Land Use Act or the statutory authority of the Governor, who holds land in trust for the people.
The Ibeno Clan Council faulted repeated references by the EPU to a purported 1918 Privy Council judgment allegedly conferring perpetual ownership of the entire Stubbs Creek Forest, describing such claims as legally misleading and historically dishonest.
According to Chief Udofia, no colonial-era judgment grants eternal proprietary rights over a forest reserve duly created and managed by the government under valid statutes. He added that any such judgment, if it exists, would have been context-specific and cannot supersede post-independence constitutional frameworks, forest reservation laws or subsequent statutory control by the government.
The council reaffirmed that the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve is a legally constituted reserve established through valid ordinances and gazettes, noting that once land is reserved, its control, management and allocation rest exclusively with the government.
Chief Udofia emphasised that alleged ownership claims do not amount to possessory or allocative rights, insisting that the government does not require the consent of any ethnic group to regulate or allocate land within a duly constituted forest reserve in the public interest.
He also dismissed claims that the government never acquired the Stubbs Creek Forest, describing them as demonstrably false. According to him, the reservation itself constitutes statutory control and limitation of rights, while compensation, where applicable, is a policy issue and not an admission of perpetual ownership.
The council further argued that the law does not require the government to repeatedly reacquire land already under valid statutory control.
Reacting to references made to ExxonMobil’s Qua Iboe Terminal (QIT) as a precedent, Chief Udofia said the comparison was selective and misleading, noting that each land transaction is governed by its own legal and historical circumstances.
He warned that past administrative decisions do not bind present governments, especially where overriding public interest and economic development are involved, adding that the QIT case does not establish a legal template compelling investors to negotiate with self-appointed ethnic custodians.
The Ibeno Clan Council also condemned the description of the BUA refinery project as “criminal encroachment,” calling such language reckless, defamatory and dangerous.
Chief Udofia maintained that BUA is operating based on lawful allocations and approvals issued by the government, stressing that any dispute over land title remains a civil matter and not a criminal one.
He cautioned that threats of “resistance until eternity” amount to economic sabotage rhetoric capable of destabilising the state.
Reiterating the provisions of the Land Use Act, the council noted that all land is vested in the Governor to be held in trust for the people, and that industrial developments such as refineries, petrochemical plants and mining projects fall clearly within overriding public interest.
Chief Udofia described the EPU’s interpretation of the Act as legally untenable and contrary to settled law.
On claims that land must be dereserved before allocation, the council stated that dereservation is an administrative process solely within the discretion of the government and not subject to approval or veto by any ethnic group.
He further condemned statements suggesting that existing or future structures could be demolished or halted, describing them as threats bordering on incitement and capable of undermining public peace and investor confidence.
Chief Udofia also described as provocative and ahistorical the claim that lands currently occupied by the Ibeno people belong to Ekid, stressing that Ibeno is a constitutionally recognised Local Government Area whose territorial integrity cannot be negated by ethnic assertions or petitions.
He urged the Land Use Allocation Committee to discount submissions founded on misapplied colonial judgments, reaffirm the authority of the Land Use Act and the Governor, protect lawful investments from intimidation, and encourage the resolution of disputes through the courts rather than coercion. “The future of Akwa Ibom State lies in law, order, development and peaceful coexistence—not in the weaponisation of history or threats against government and investors,” Chief Udofia said.
