As the ownership tussle over the Stubb Creek Forest Reserve in Akwa Ibom State continues between the Ekid Peoples Union (EPU) and the Ibeno people, the Ibeno Clan Council has described the submissions of the EPU before the State Land Use Allocation Committee as distorted, misleading, and capable of undermining peace, lawful governance, and investment in the state.
Recall that representatives of the Ekid nation, while appearing before the committee on January 16, repeatedly referenced a 1918 Privy Council judgment, claiming that the ruling conferred on them perpetual ownership of the entire Stubbs Creek Forest.
The Akwa Ibom State Government, however, faulted the claim in a statement issued by the Commissioner for Justice, Uko Udom, SAN, who stated that the historic case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1918 did not vest ownership of Stubbs Creek land in any ethnic group or community.
Reacting, the spokesman of the Ibeno Clan Council, Chief Udofia Okon Udofia, who spoke on behalf of the elders, said the EPU lacks both constitutional and statutory powers to claim ownership, control, or veto authority over land administration in the state.
He questioned how powers of attorney allegedly issued by private individuals or traditional institutions, as claimed by the EPU, could override the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Land Use Act, or the statutory powers of the Governor, who holds land in trust for the people.
Chief Udofia stressed that no colonial-era judgment could grant eternal proprietary rights over a forest reserve duly declared and managed by government under valid statutes. He noted that even if such a judgment exists, it would have been context-specific and cannot supersede post-independence constitutional frameworks, forest reservation laws, or subsequent statutory control by government.
On the EPU’s reference to ExxonMobil’s Qua Iboe Terminal (QIT) as a precedent, Chief Udofia described the comparison as selective and misleading, stressing that each land transaction is governed by its own historical and legal circumstances.
He warned that past administrative decisions do not bind present governments, particularly where overriding public interest and economic development are involved, and insisted that QIT does not establish a legal template requiring investors to negotiate with self-appointed ethnic custodians.
Addressing the EPU’s description of the BUA refinery project as “criminal encroachment,” Chief Udofia said such statements were reckless, defamatory, and dangerous. He maintained that BUA acted on allocations and approvals lawfully issued by government, adding that any dispute over title remains a civil matter, not a criminal one.
He further advised the Ekid nation to note that under the provisions of the Land Use Act, the Governor holds all land in trust for the people and may deploy it for overriding public interest, emphasizing that industrial developments such as refineries, petrochemical plants, and mining projects clearly fall within that provision.
The spokesman also condemned claims by the EPU that lands currently occupied by Ibeno people belong to Ekid, stressing that Ibeno is a constitutionally recognised Local Government Area whose territorial integrity cannot be erased by ethnic declarations or petitions to security agencies.
