By Israel Umoh
Two Nigerian scholars have taken on Akwa Ibom Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General over the controversial ownership of Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve, describing government’s position as legally flawed and historically misleading.
Professor Desmond Wilson, Scholar in Communication Arts and Dr. Uwem Akpan, Historical Consultant reined on Mr. Uko Essien Udom, the Commissioner for Justice in a press release dated January 6, 2026 over the legal status of the lingering Stubbs Forest Reserve, known by the Ibibio as “Akoiyak”, accusing the government of distorting historical and legal facts to support its claim to the disputed area.
In the release, Udom had written ‘‘Contrary to the claims being circulated, the historic litigation, the case of Ntiaro and Ikpak Vs. Ibok Etok Akpan and Edoho Ekid, culminating in the 1918 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council did not vest ownership of Stubbs Creek land in any ethnic group or community. The final judgment merely dismissed the claims before the court and granted title to no party whatsoever. Any assertion to the contrary is false, misleading and a distortion of the judicial record.”
Related News:
- Akwa Ibom Govt Clears Air on Stubbs Creek land Ownership
- Gov threatens to sack Transition Chairmen of warring LGAs
- Stubbs Creek: EPU Faults Governor Eno’s ‘‘terrorists’’ Remark on Ekid people
Writing for Ekid Collective on the topic: Stubbs Creek: The Facts, the Acts and the Falsehoods in the social media in January 2026, Prof Wilson stated ‘‘Discussing politics is a favourite rendezvous for me in our world of missteps, lies and grave human rights violations. In the past few weeks there has been a barrage of lies, half-truths and government threats against one of the foremost oil-producing communities in Akwa Ibom namely, Eket and Esit Eket communities.
‘‘For whatever reason, the Governor of Akwa Ibom, Pastor Umo Bassey Eno has spearheaded this onslaught against the people of the community he has lived in for over 35 years. The issue has been that of the ownership of the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve. This now abused piece of God’s earth is well known by the governor to be the exclusive property of the Ekid people.
According to him, ‘‘The Ibuno (now spelt Ibeno) a late arrival in the area after a fatal dispute over trading control with King Jaja of Opobo in the late 19th century fled in their canoes from Bonny, eastwards to Ikot Abasi, Mkpat Enin, Onna and Eket where they were granted asylum.
‘‘Since the fleeing Ibuno groups came in different droves, they were allowed to settle in three villages including Iwuochang and Okoroutip. But they soon began to quarrel among themselves, and this led to the famous suit between Big Town and Upenekang, which an Ekid chief, Abong Edoho-eket was joined. The Ibuno groups were fighting for the control of the area. Chief Edoho-eket informed the court that the two disputants were settlers and eventually judgment was given in his favour as representive of the landlords, the Ekid people, Ibuno appealed the judgment through the Supreme Court, West African Court of Appeal, up to the Privy Council in London. This was the highest court for the colonies at the time.’’
The Scholar recalled ‘‘In 1918 the Privy Council declared the Ibuno as strangers who had no title to the land they were claiming and were ordered to pay damages to the Ekid people. There is no evidence to show they paid the amount that was ordered. But the Ekid people were so lenient to their tenants that they made no further claims and allowed them to stay on.
‘‘These facts are well known to the rulers in the state from 1967 when we were part of the erstwhile South-Eastern State. The present Attorney General of the state, Mr Uko Udom once defended ExxonMobil in the 1990s in a suit the Ibuno brought to demand for royalty when the earlier agreement with Eket expired. Ibuno had sought to be paid instead of Eket. The arguments he marshaled then against the Ibuno are the same arguments Ekid people have used to inform our Ibuno brothers to be forthright. It is surprising that now that he is serving government, he has turned around to twist the arguments against the Ekid and in favour of Ibuno. If he now thinks he was lying then let him come out to confess.
Jonathan Swift the Irish writer has advised us, “You should never be ashamed to admit you have been wrong. It only proves you are wiser today than yesterday”. Honourable Attorney General, is this the case? The great Cambodian leader, Prince Norodom Sihanouk has also advised us to note that, ‘Time will inevitably discover dishonesty and lies, history has no place for them.’’
The Communication Arts expert remarked ‘‘Unfortunately, we often discover too late that a ‘a liar’s punishment is not in the lie he told, but in nobody believing them when they speak the truth’. So when governments speaks and acts in a manner that seeks to obliterate the truth, it should remember that a lie has an expiry date. ‘The truth,’ as one anonymous commentator puts it, ‘is still the truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it’.
‘’Government cannot threaten the people over their property and then say that someone came to the world with no land, and would not depart with any, as if the proclaimer will leave for ever. The Ekid people will fight for their inheritance. The people who have tried to disinherit them for more than 108 years will not inherit this land because the courts had decided the matter about108 years ago. We cannot tell the owner to abandon his rights because we have special interests in claiming part of the benefits if their rogue interpretation of the law in favour of a rogue claimant is forcibly implemented. And as Rachel Hawthorne has averred, ‘Deception may give us what we want for the present but it will always take it away in the end’.
In one breath, the Government recognises the Ibuno as landlords and encourages BUA and other investor interests to pay compensation to them and yet the Attorney General claims the land belongs to no group. The AKS Government is today enjoying the status of the largest oil-producing state because of the littoral/coastal local government areas. The insincerity shines through like the full moon glowing through the darkest night. The government may use our resources to bribe ignorant youths and political wheeler dealers who will assure them of their loyalty to them, but they should be rest assured that those political traders do not represent us.’’
‘‘If the land did not belong to the Ekid people why was Exxon-Mobil made to pay to Ekid people for the ‘dereserved’ part of the Stubbs Creek to expand its activities? Another important question that the state must answer is, why are they parceling out portions of land to themselves and their friends when they know that this forest reserve created in 1930 is supposed to serve as an environmentally friendly hub which could become part of the World’s heritage sites?’’ he queried.
Wilson threw a challenge ‘‘Let the government come out with the truth; how many of the past rulers and serving ones have large hectares of thestubbs Creek Forest Reserve allocated to them? Who collects the money? The so-called Lagos to Calabar Coastal Highway passes through several communities. Don’t they pay compensation in those areas? Is it part of the political alignment that Akwa Ibom people must not get their own share of what is authorized by law? Must we return to the houseboy mentality to convince our oppressors that we are indeed true slaves?’’
In his reaction entitled: RE: LEGAL STATUS OF STUBBS CREEK FOREST RESERVE. ATTENTION UKO ESSIEN UDOM, SAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, Dr. Akpan wrote ‘‘This author does not understand the hidden intention of the Government of Akwa Ibom State, as demonstrated through its “legal mouthpiece” – (the Attorney-General & Commissioner for Justice), and the methodology of interpretation applied in the matter, however, it should be noted that the statement is historically false, thus very misleading.”
Buttressing the argument in a social media dated 15th January, 2026, the Consultant Historian reasoned ‘‘This is because there is no piece of land on the surface of the earth that does not belong to a particular community. This assertion includes the portion of land known as “Akoiyak”- the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve. In fact, that is the reason the colonial authorities did not forcefully grab the said piece of land. Rather, copious evidence show that the colonial agents, rather consulted and negotiated with many Ibibio (Eket) communities before the colonial imposition was effected.
It is known that the Ibibio presence in Nigeria has enjoyed great antiquity. Talbot rightly points out that the earliest inhabitants of South Eastern Nigeria were the Ibibio. The Ibibio occupy the geographical region of Southeastern Nigeria or what was described by the colonial administration as the Six Ibibio Districts of Abak, Eket, Ikot Ekpene, Itu, Opobo (Ikot Abasi) and Uyo in the Old Calabar Province.
Available written and ethnographic records establish that Ibibio land “stretches from the right bank of the river formerly called Opobo but which is now, as a result of boundary adjustment, Ikot Abasi River, the estuary of which used to be known as the mouth of the Imo River as it flows into the Atlantic Ocean and now constitutes the Western boundary separating Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria from both Rivers State and Abia State of Nigeria to the Cross River and beyond in the East, and as far as the international boundary separating Nigeria from the Cameroon Republic. The Ibibio are a coastal people; the sea-board including the Bight of Bonny formerly the Bight of Biafra washes the shores of the Ibibio country all along the whole of the Southern coast”.
Forde and Jones in the “Igbo and Ibibio Speaking-Peoples classify the Ibibio” thus:
Main Sub-Groups Location
- Eastern or Proper Ibibio Uyo, Etinan, parts of Eket, Ikot Ekpene, Abak and
Ikot Abasi
- Western Ibibio or Annang Abak and Ikot Ekpene Divisions, plus parts of
Umuahia and Aba Divisions in Abia State
- Northern Ibibio or Enyong Parts of Itu, Calabar and Ikot Ekpene Divisions plus Parts of Bende in Abia State
- Southern Ibibio Oron and parts of Eket Division
- Delta Ibibio or Andoni Ibeno, parts of Eket and Ikot Abasi Divisions
- Riverine Ibibio or Efik Calabar and parts of Itu Divisions
N/b: This Table has been modified in the light of current political developments in Nigeria leading to the re-adjustment of administrative boundaries (see Ekong Ekong, Sociology of the Ibibio: A Study of Social Organisation and Change. Uyo: Modern Business Press, 2001, pp. 2-3).
According to him,’ ’The Ntiaro and Ikpak Vs. Ibok Etok Akpan and Edoho Ekid case began in 1914 between two settler communities in Ibibio land – Mkpanak and Ubenekang. The crux of the matter was the rights of the plaintiffs (Mkpanak) to certain land adjoining a community known as Mkpanak (otherwise known as Afaha Ibeno), where they were allotted by the Ibibio (Ekid Afaha in particular) to settle. The dispute arose owing to another settler community known as Ubenekang claiming the right to build huts on this land without the plaintiff’s permission.
When the Ibibio land owners became aware of the dispute by the “recent settlers in Ibibio land”, the Ibibio, through their representative, Chief Edoho Eket Udosen appeared and applied to be joined as defendant, on behalf of the people of Usung Inyang and Eket people. This request was granted and the case was settled in favour of the Ibibio land owners. The people of Mkpanak appealed and dragged the case to the Privy Council in London and the case was eventually decided in favour of the Ibibio in 1918.’’
From his social media platform, Akpan explained ‘‘Ibeno consists of seven traditional settlements in the Southern part of Ibibio land. They are Okoroutip (Ikot Uttip), Ntafrre, Atabrikang, Opolom (settlements in Oniong Clan, Onna Local Government Area), Ubenekang, Mkpanak and Iwochang (settlements in Ekid Afaha, Ekett Local Government Area). (see South-Eastern State of Nigeria Gazette, Notice No. 699, Vol. 6, 1973, p. A, 113)
He quoted Edet Akpan Udo in his seminal work, “Who are the Ibibio?” aptly captures and states the traditional disposition of the Ibibio towards their land thus: “the Ibibo pre-colonial economy depended to a large extent on their land. From time immemorial, the Ibibio attached great importance to their land. They regarded it as their “First Mother”. It is their Mother Earth, because it is the soil which is their source of water: the rivers, seas and ocean which were so much part of their every-day life….It is in them that some of their water deities…lived….It is the soil which bore them, so to speak, for it produced cash crops. It is this soil that their ancestors were buried…the living would in turn be buried there with their ancestors. The Ibibio also believe that, without their land, they would be dead men, women and communities….They would do nothing to profane the land…According to the Ibibio people, the land was given to them in trust by their ancestors…the land….thus was passed on from generation to generation.
Slamming the Attorney general on what he sees as as ‘Absurdity of the Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice’s Statement,’ he stated ‘‘It should be noted that the statement by the Attorney-General & Commissioner for Justice is absurd and his interpretation very elementary. It is historically untrue and misleading. This elementary interpretation of the law should be publicly withdrawn with apology. The “Akoiyak” (Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve) is an integral part of Ibibio (Eket) land and no inch of the said ancestral land which is being “scrambled” upon will be partitioned by any authority.
‘‘Such unguarded statement can open the flanks for the Ibibio treacherous kinsmen, who, as “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” are scavenging to grab Ibibio littoral for the realisation of the imaginary Obolo State. This statement poses existential threat to the Ibibio as a whole.’’
