By Aniefiok Christopher
A socio-cultural organisation in Akwa Ibom, Ekid People’s Union (EPU) says the State Governor, Pastor Umo Eno’s declaration of its members as ‘‘terrorists’’ for asserting ownership over the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve was not a surprise to them.
A press statement issued on Sunday and jointly signed by Rt. Hon. (Chief) Nduese Essien, Chairman, BOT and Prince (Éngr.) Bassey Itama, Secretary, BOT of Ekid People’s Union, cited years of marginalization, provocation, stigmatization and misrepresentation of the people’s legitimate right to the reserve, describing the Governor’s remarks against the Ekid people and the leadership of the union as ‘‘deeply hurtful and troubling.’’
Speaking amid rising tensions caused by the unfavourable remarks, under the title: AN OPEN APPEAL FOR REASON, JUSTICE, AND THE FUTURE OF STUBBS CREEK FOREST RESERVE, they said the label was part of the broader attempt to criminalise Ekid’s ancestral ownership of the forest.
According to them, ‘‘When His Excellency, Pastor Umo Eno, Governor of Akwa Ibom State, visited Nduo Eduo in Eket Local Government Area to commission a Model Health Centre built by the state government, Ekid people received the gesture with sincere gratitude. Coming at Christmas, the health centre was widely perceived as a gift of life and goodwill. For this, we say thank you.
Related posts:
- Whatever will Bring Progress to Akwa Ibom, Nobody Will Stop it- Governor
- Gov threatens to sack Transition Chairmen of warring LGAs
- Insecurity: A’Ibom Outlaws Motorcycles’ Operation In Eket
Though appreciated what they called the gift, they, with respect and honesty, rejected the message that accompanied it.
‘‘We have resisted the temptation to respond with anger or recrimination. Instead, we have reflected deeply and chosen to believe that the governor’s outburst may have been caused by the pressures of office, the exigencies of governance, and the heavy burden that leadership places on those who carry it.
‘‘Regrettably, since that day, some political supporters and praise-singers have gone further to expatiate on those remarks and embellishing them and adding more salt to an already open wound. What may have been a momentary lapse has been weaponised into a sustained narrative that portrays Ekid people as enemies of progress.
‘‘As the Board of Trustees of the Ekid People’s Union, we owe a solemn duty to intervene at this point. That duty is owed not only to Ekid people but also to the peace, stability, and future of Akwa Ibom State. We must clear the misconceptions that have been generated, restate the genuine concerns of Ekid people with clarity and restraint, and create room for an amicable, lawful, and dignified resolution of the issues surrounding the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve,’’ the union stated.
According to them, ‘‘The declaration of Ekid people as “terrorists” under the guise that they are resisting the routing of a proposed coastal or super highway through the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve did not entirely surprise us.
‘‘Sadly, such language has become a recurring feature whenever Ekid people raise questions about the Stubbs Creek. Yet, each time it happens, it deepens mistrust and hardens positions. It is painful that a people who have consistently acted within the bounds of the law are now being criminalised for asserting their rights.
‘‘These are the same Ekid people who received Pastor Umo Eno into their land, accommodated him, and lived with him for over 35 years. These are the people among whom he built his business and established his roots. These are the people who embraced him as their son and supported him overwhelmingly to emerge as Governor of Akwa Ibom State.
They reminded the Governor thus ‘‘Ekid people neither terrorised him nor disrupted his businesses. That such people would now be labelled terrorists because they insist that their ancestral land should not be appropriated indiscriminately, without due process, consultation, or compensation, is a painful irony that history will not easily forget.
‘‘Ekid people are not opposed to development. This must be stated clearly and repeatedly, because it lies at the heart of the current misunderstanding. We desire development in all its forms. We want roads, hospitals, schools, industries, and opportunities for our young people, just like every other community in Akwa Ibom State.
‘‘What we oppose is a model of development that treats host communities as inconveniences, that circumvents the law, and that ignores history and culture. Insisting on due process in land acquisition is not hostility; it is a legitimate demand grounded in law and citizenship,’’ the union explained.
‘‘It is also necessary to address attempts to personalise or delegitimise Ekid resistance by targeting the leadership of Ekid People’s Union. Dr. Samuel Udonsak, President of EPU, is the duly recognised head of its Executive Committee and the authorised spokesman of Ekid people. Whatever actions he has taken regarding the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve have been taken with the full authorisation and backing of the Ekid people.
‘‘There is no parallel authority, no rogue agenda, and no personal ambition at play. To isolate or vilify him is to misunderstand the collective nature of Ekid decision-making and to misrepresent the unity of purpose that exists on this issue,’’ EPU said.
‘‘Contrary to some narratives, according to them, ‘‘Ekid people have not opposed the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway as a federal project. We understand the importance of regional connectivity and economic integration. We also know that the Federal Government, in constructing the Highway in other parts of the country, has adhered to land acquisition processes, engaged host communities, and paid compensation where required.
‘‘The caveat issued by Ekid People’s Union was not a call to stop development. It was a warning to private investors that illegal land racketeering was ongoing within the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve and that ancestral land was being allocated without consultation, consent, or compensation.
‘‘This caveat did not arise in a vacuum. It was prompted by repeated actions in which Ekid land within the Stubbs Creek was transferred to security agencies and private companies as though no indigenous owners existed. Such actions, if left unchallenged, would set a dangerous precedent and permanently dispossess Ekid people of their heritage. Silence, in this context, would have amounted to surrender.’’
The Union posited ‘‘The legal status of the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve is clear and well established. As far back as 1918, the Privy Council, in the case of Ntiaro and Ikpak v. Ibok, Etukakpan and Edohoeket, affirmed Ekid ownership of the swamps and littoral lands east of the Qua Iboe River, an area now known as Stubbs Creek. That judgment has never been overturned.
‘‘Although successive governments have failed to respect or implement it fully, its legal authority remains intact. More recently, the Akwa Ibom State Map Law of 2023 further aligned officially recognised boundaries with Ekid territorial reality, reinforcing what history and law have long established.
‘‘The designation of Stubbs Creek as a forest reserve under Forest Reserve Order No. 45 of 1930 was intended strictly for conservation. It did not extinguish Ekid ownership of the land. Under Nigerian land law and the Land Use Act of 1978, Ekid people retain ownership and deemed rights of occupancy over the area. Government custodianship of land for conservation purposes does not translate into absolute ownership or a licence to dispose of such land arbitrarily.’’
On the idea that Ekid have refused to make concessions to their neighbours, the Union pointed out ‘‘Assertions that Ekid people have refused to make concessions to their neighbours are equally at odds with historical evidence. Ekid people have a long record of accommodation and negotiated compromise. In 1945, when the colonial administration required land for a dispensary and a Native Court for Ibeno, they negotiated with neighbouring Esit Urua village and obtained the land needed.
‘‘In 2001, when land was required for the Ibeno Local Government Secretariat, it took the intervention of Governor Obong Victor Attah and his deputy, Dr. Chris Ekpenyong, to appeal to Ekid people. Once again, land was granted. Clear understandings were reached regarding boundaries, understandings that were later breached. These facts tell the story of a people who are willing to make concessions but insist that agreements be honoured.’’
EPU posited that ‘‘Beyond legality and history lies an even more compelling argument: environmental sustainability and economic foresight. Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve is one of the last remaining forest ecosystems in Akwa Ibom State. Its mangroves and forests serve as natural buffers against coastal erosion and flooding, regulate local climate, and sustain biodiversity that is increasingly rare. They support livelihoods tied to fishing, hunting, and traditional occupations, and they provide ecological services whose value far exceeds short-term gains from land conversion.
‘‘While we recognise the strong temptation governments often face to convert natural assets into quick revenue, we respectfully submit that such a panicky approach would be a grave mistake in the case of Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve. Nigeria’s experience with crude oil reserves should serve as a cautionary lesson. For decades, the nation has sold off its oil reserves for short term fiscal gains, often without adequate consideration for sustainability, environmental protection, or the wellbeing of future generations.
‘‘The increasingly harsh rhetoric directed at Ekid people appears designed to intimidate and silence them, possibly to obscure questionable land transactions carried out over the past six years under the false assumption that government owns all land within Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve. In its continued drive for transparency in land allocation in Stubbs Creek Forest Reserves, last year the EPU President publicly lauded His Excellency, Governor Umo Eno’s directive that all land allocations in the State from 2023 be revoked.’’
EPU urged His Excellency to extend that directive to Stubbs Creek Forests, saying ‘‘We state firmly and clearly that Ekid people will not be intimidated into surrendering their rights. We will not be coerced into silence to legitimise illegality. Our resolve is rooted in law, history, and a responsibility to generations yet unborn.
‘‘Your Excellency, Akwa Ibom State stands at a defining moment. One path leads to dialogue, respect for the rule of law, environmental responsibility, and inclusive development. The other leads to force, resentment, ecological loss, and avoidable conflict. We believe that leadership is ultimately judged not by how loudly it asserts power, but by how wisely it exercises restraint.
They, however, called for ‘‘A cessation of hostile rhetoric for genuine engagement with Ekid stakeholders, for transparent environmental and social impact assessments, and for a reconsideration of any project that threatens to destroy Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve. Alternative routes exist. Innovative solutions are possible. What is required is a political will grounded in wisdom.’’
‘‘Ekid people remain open to dialogue provided we are not expected to sign off our inalienable rights. We remain committed to peace. We remain willing partners in the development of Akwa Ibom State. But we will also remain steadfast in defending our land, our environment, and our dignity. That stance is not terrorism. It is responsible citizenship rooted in the rule of law. It is justice bereft of self -help. It is maturity grounded in self –restraint. And it is our obligation to the future generations,’’ EPU added.
We are Not ”terrorists”- Peter Bassey
In another OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY, GOVERNOR UMO ENO, ON STUBBS CREEK (AKOIYAK), EKID PEOPLE ARE NOT TERRORISTS, Peters Bassey also known as Peter Buhari, a new-born journalist, rejected the recent statements credited to the governor during the inauguration of a Model Health Centre in Nduo Eduo, Eket Local Government Area, where you responded angrily to a formal caveat issued by the Ekid People’s Union (EPU) concerning the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve (Akoiyak).
In A Facebook post, Peter wrote ‘‘At no point did the Ekid People’s Union declare opposition to development.
‘‘What EPU issued was a caveat emptor, a lawful and globally recognised warning to investors, following repeated actions by the State Government in allocating portions of Ekid ancestral land to the Navy and private companies without consultation, consent, or compensation to the Ekid people.
‘‘Development that tramples on lawful ownership, ignores court judgments, and sidelines host communities is not progress; it is a recipe for conflict.’’
He recapped ‘‘Your Excellency, the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve was created under Forest Reserve Order No. 45 of 1930 strictly for conservation purposes. That reservation did not extinguish ownership, nor did it convert Ekid land into Crown Land or State Land.
‘‘Under Nigerian law and the Land Use Act of 1978, the Ekid people retain title and deemed right of occupancy over Akoiyak. Forest reservation is regulatory, not proprietary.
‘‘This distinction is elementary in land law and cannot be wished away by executive declarations.’’
According to him, ‘‘It is deeply troubling that Your Excellency described EPU as a party “still in court” and implied that Ekid was acting improperly by asserting its rights.
‘‘The Privy Council Judgment of 1918 (Ntiaro & Ikpak v. Ibok Etukakpan & Edohoekit), delivered in London, affirmed Ekid ownership of the swamps and littoral lands east of the Qua Iboe River which is the area now called Stubbs Creek (Akoiyak).
‘‘This judgment has never been set aside, overturned, or vacated.
‘‘Records of proceedings, maps, and survey plans remain accessible at the British National Library, Kew.
‘‘You asking us to go back to the government of 1918 sounds like you are ready to take our ancestral land from us.
Ekid did not “run to court for fun.” Ekid returned to court only after repeated refusal by successive governments, including this administration, to respect and implement that judgment, despite the enactment of the Akwa Ibom State Map Law of 2023, which aligns with Ekid’s territorial claims.’’
He reminded ‘‘My Excellency, your description of EPU President Dr. Samuel Udonsak and Ekid people asserting ownership as “terrorists” is profoundly disturbing.
‘‘The Ekid people are not militants. They are not insurgents. They are law-abiding citizens invoking court judgments, statutes, and documented history.
‘‘Such language, especially when used by the Chief Security Officer of the State, is capable of:
* Criminalising legitimate civil claims.
* Expose great biased for the opposite side.
* Justifying repression.
* And inflaming communal tensions in an already sensitive area.’’
”History has shown, repeatedly, that dismissing legitimate land grievances with threats and insults does not bring peace, it breeds resistance and enmity.’’ .
”You cited stalled investments: including the BUA project as justification for attacking EPU’s caveat.
”With respect my Excellency, investors withdrew not because Ekid spoke, but because:
*The State Government misrepresented ownership to them;
*Allocations were made without resolving long-standing legal claims;
*Due diligence exposed unresolved land title issues.
*No serious investor proceeds where land ownership is contested and unresolved. EPU’s caveat merely stated the truth after the damage had already been done.’’
‘‘You urged Ekid to “embrace dialogue.”
‘‘Dialogue is valuable but dialogue cannot override court judgments. Dialogue cannot legalise illegality. Dialogue cannot replace restitution, consultation, and consent.
”Ekid has always been open to engagement, but engagement must start with acknowledgment of facts, not denial of history,’’ he added.
