The controversy trailing Appeal No: CCA/PH/37/2025 has intensified as stakeholders in Abonnema Kingdom continue to debate the implications of a “Disclaimer” issued in the name of the Blackduke (Mgbula) Oweredaba War Canoe House.
In a detailed press statement, the Kalabari Heritage Assembly challenged the disclaimer and urged the public to focus on legal principles, historical records and due process rather than emotional narratives or institutional defensiveness.
At the centre of the dispute, the Assembly said, is a basic legal principle under Nigerian law: a defendant’s consent is not required before being joined in a suit. According to the group, any individual or entity whose interest may be affected by a legal action can properly be named as a party.
The Assembly argued that claims that the Oweredaba House was neither notified nor consulted before being included in the suit do not invalidate the proceedings. It maintained that the appropriate response under established legal practice is to file a defence before the court, either affirming or disputing the plaintiff’s claims.
“Public disclaimers cannot override judicial processes. Courts determine merit; disclaimers do not,” the statement noted.
The issues in contention date back several years and involve both traditional petitions and court proceedings. Records indicate that on May 20, 2011 — the day HRM King (Dr.) Disrael Gbobo Bob-Manuel II (Owukori IX) was installed as Amayanabo of Abonnema — allegations were reportedly raised by a member of the Owukori House.
The matter was subsequently taken before traditional institutions, including the Ekine Sekiapu. A civil suit, marked DHC/81/2013, was later filed but was struck out for lack of diligent prosecution, with costs awarded by the court.
In the years that followed, petitions were reportedly submitted to the Abonnema Council of Chiefs concerning the same allegations. The Kalabari Heritage Assembly described these events as documented history that should be addressed transparently rather than dismissed.
A key concern in ongoing public discussions, according to the Assembly, is the consistency in applying Kalabari tradition and customary standards. Observers have pointed to past instances where chiefs accused of serious misconduct were removed or sanctioned in line with tradition.
The current debate, the group noted, centres on whether such standards are being applied uniformly or selectively.
While refraining from direct accusations, the Assembly warned that selective justice — whether perceived or real — could erode confidence in revered traditional institutions.
Questions have also emerged over representation, with some stakeholders reportedly querying why certain individuals linked to the matter were not signatories to the circulated disclaimer. However, opinion leaders have advised that such internal concerns be resolved through dialogue rather than public speculation.
Reaffirming its commitment to institutional integrity, the Kalabari Heritage Assembly called for transparency in addressing historical petitions, respect for due process in both customary and conventional courts, constructive internal dialogue among houses and chiefs, and a commitment to truth and reconciliation.
The Assembly emphasized that traditional stools, war canoe houses and councils of chiefs remain sacred institutions that must not be reduced to factional disputes.
As legal proceedings continue, many within Kalabari land are closely observing developments — not only for the outcome of the case, but for what it signifies about justice, accountability and the preservation of heritage in Abonnema Kingdom.
