Israel Umoh
Crisis is rocking the Akwa Ibom traditional rulers council as 13 Paramount Rulers joined in suing Governor Umo Eno over the amended State Traditional Rulers Law, 2022 brouhaha.
The royal fathers are said to be unhappy over the speedy passage of executive bill tagged: amended Traditional Rulers Law, 2022 into law by the state House of Assembly and subsequent assent to it and swearing in of the President General, Supreme Council of Traditional Rulers into office by the state governor.
Though the governor blamed the royal fathers for reneging on the agreement on the introduction of the law, the traditional fathers felt ‘slighted’ that they never discussed the nitty gritty of the law with the governor as portrayed on the appointment of the President General as a lifetime occupier of the office.
Related posts
- Royal stool that stokes tribal fire, protests in Akwa Ibom
- Akwa Ibom State Traditional Rulers’ Council Law: Facts and Fiction
- Angry women Block House over Amended Traditional Rulers Law in Akwa Ibom
The plaintiffs are Obong Cosmas Okon Akpan, Paramount Ruler, Essien Udim; Akuku (Prof.) Amanam Udo, Paramount Ruler, Etim Ekpo; Edidem Unanawo, Paramount Ruler, Urue-Offong Oruko; Harry John Etetor, Paramount Ruler of Eastern Obolo, Obong Saviour Udofia, Paramount Ruler, Abak; Akuku (Dr.) Uwa Umoh Adiaka, Paramount Ruler, Obot Akara; and Obong Okon Udo Ukut, Paramount Ruler, Ikot Ekpene.
Others are Edidem Ita Edet Okokon 111, Paramout Ruler, Okobo; Akuku (Engr) Johnson Johnny Obosi, Paramount Ruler, Oruk Anam; Owong Okon Asukwo Abang, Paramount Ruler, Mbo; Akuku (Engr) Amos Daniel Akpan, Paramount Ruler, Ukanafun; Akuku Joseph Okosi Ekot 111, Paramount Ruler, Ika; Owong (Prof.) Effiong Bassey Archianga, Paramount Ruler, Ibeno.
They are suing for themselves and on behalf of the Traditional Rulers and Ethnic People of Annang, Oro, Obolo, Ekid, Ibeno.
The Paramount Rulers who dragged the Governor to Akwa Ibom State High Court, Uyo in a Suit No. HU/2023 dated October 5, 2023 joined the Speaker, Akwa Ibom House of Assembly, the state Attorney General and Ntenyin (Dr) Solomon Etuk, Paramount Ruler of Nsit Ubium as defendants.
The originating summons is issued in the matter of the recently amended Traditional Rulers Law, CAP 155, Laws of Akwa Ibom State 2022.
Recall that on September 22, 2023, Akwa Ibom State High Court, Uyo, following an ex parte motion filed by some royal fathers in the state joining the Governor, the Speaker, Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly and the state Attorney General, restrained the House from passing the bill into law, but the House defied the court order and passed it into law.
The suit states that ‘‘Within Forty-two days after service of this summons on them, inclusive of the day of such service, cause an appearance to be entered for them to this summon which is issued upon the application of the Plaintiffs who claimed to be Traditional Rulers and indigenes of Annang, Oro, Obolo, Ekid ethnic groups of Akwa Ibom State, negatively affected by the recently amended Traditional Rulers Law Cap 155, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022.’’
To determine the case, the plaintiffs query ‘‘Whether the titles of ‘Oku Ibom Ibibio’, ‘Akwa Akuku Annang’ and ‘Ahta Oro’ introduced by recent amendments into the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155 Laws of Akwa Ibom State 2022, through the new Sections 47 and 48, are known to Law as they are not creations of any enactment of the House of Assembly or any Law of Akwa Ibom State to be clothed with the legal personalities to occupy statutory offices created by the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022, as amended?
‘‘Whether the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 recently introduced by way of amendment into the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022 naming the ‘Oku Ibom Ibibio’, ‘Akuku Afe Annang’ and ‘Ahta Oro’ as the President-General, Vice Presidents I and II of the newly created Supreme Council of Traditional Rulers, are not illegal, invalid, null and void as those titles are unknown to Law being not creations of any enactment or statutes of the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly.
‘‘Whether Sections 47 and 48 of the recently amended Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155, Laws of Akwa Ibom State which has the sole intent and purpose of superimposing, promoting and enthroning the Ibibio ethnic group in perpetuity over the others are not discriminatory, tribalistic and so inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 1(3), 15(1) and (2) 17(1) and (2) and 42(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) and Articles 2 and 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1983, CAP A9 LFN 2010?’’
They also argue ‘‘Whether the recently amended Sections 47 and 48 of the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155, Laws of Akwa Ibom State are not discriminatory and prejudicial to the Plaintiffs as Traditional Rulers and indigenes of Akwa Ibom State from the Plaintiffs’ ethnic groups to the extent that they are perpetually excluded and precluded as Paramount Rulers from aspiring to the highest position of President-General in the newly created Akwa Ibom State Supreme Council of Traditional Rulers?.
The aggrieved royal fathers, therefore, seek reliefs thus ‘‘A DECLARATION that the titles of ‘Oku Ibom Ibibio’, ‘Akwa Akuku Annang’ and ‘Ahta Oro’ introduced into the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155 Laws of Akwa Ibom State, by amendments through the new Sections 47 and 48, are unknown to Law as they are not creations of any enactment of the House of Assembly or any Law of Akwa Ibom State, and therefore lacked the legal personalities to occupy the statutory offices created by Sections 43 and 44 of the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155 Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022, as amended.
‘‘A DECLARATION that the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 recently introduced by way of amendment into the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022 naming the ‘Oku Ibom Ibibio’, ‘Akuku Afe Annang’ and ‘Ahta Oro’ as the President-General, Vice Presidents I and II of the newly created Supreme Council of Traditional Rulers, are illegal, invalid, null and void as those titles are unknown to Law as they are not creations of any enactment or statutes of the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly.
‘‘A DECLARATION that the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 recently introduced and enacted into the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155 Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022 by the 3rd and 4th Defendants and signed into law by the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants are inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 1(3), 15(1) and (2) 17(1) and (2) and 42(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) and Articles 2. and 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1983, CAP A9 LFN 2010 and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.
‘‘A DECLARATION that the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 recently introduced by way of amendment into the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022 by the 3rd and 4th Defendants and signed into law by the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants constitute a violation of the rights of various ethnic groups in Akwa Ibom State by expressly excluding an equitable rotational clause and principle in respect of the office of President-General and Vice Presidents 1 and 2 and so inconsistent with and repugnant to the provisions of Sections 1(3), 15(1) and (2) 17(1) and (2) and 42(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) and Articles 2 and 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1983, CAP A9 LFN 2010.
‘‘A DECLARATION that the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of recently enacted and amended version of the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022, by the 3rd and 4th Defendants and signed into law by the 1st 2nd and 5th Defendants seeking to make the 6th Defendant, the Oku Ibom Ibibio and his successor-in-title a perpetual President-General of the newly created Akwa Ibom State Supreme Council of Traditional Rulers to the exclusion of other ethnic groups in Akwa Ibom State is repugnant to the principle of equality and so inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 15, 17 and 42(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) and Articles 2 and 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1983, CAP A9 LFN 2010 and therefore null and void.
‘‘A DECLARATION that the recently introduced and amended Sections 47 and 48 of the Traditional Rulers Law Cap. 155 Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022, is inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 15, 17 and 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Articles 2 and 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1983, CAP A9 LFN 2010, for being discriminatory by excluding the rights of Traditional Rulers of Plaintiffs’ ethnic origins to aspire to the Highest Traditional Rulers position in the newly created Akwa Ibom Supreme Council of Traditional Rulers.’’
Consequent upon the intent of the case, the plaintiffs, therefore, seek ‘‘AN ORDER setting aside, striking down and expunging the newly introduced and amended Sections 47 and 48 of the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 155 Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022 for being discriminatory, illegal, invalid and inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 15, 17 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Articles 2 and 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1983, CAP A9 LFN 2010.’’
The legal team of the plaintiffs has Jumbo Uyo Udom, Prince E. Uwa Umoh, Diamond Akpanika, Eseme E. Philip, Naomi Udofia of Jumbo Udom Chambers, 37 Akapn Essien Street, Uyo.
The team also has Igerianar Assoc NBA, Ekpenyong Ntekim, Aniekan Akpan, Emmanuel Isangidoho, Innocent Idemudia, Sunday Uko Afiko, Anthony Udonsa, and Magdalene Effiok.
‘‘The Respondents may appear hereto by entering appearance personally or by a Legal Practitioner either by filing the appropriate processes (as in Order 3 Rule 8(1)) in response at the Registry of the Court where the summons was issued or by sending them to that office by any of the methods allowed by these Rules,’’ the suit urges.
