Sunday December 28, 2025
www.thenewsdesk.ng
By Enem SANDY
The Ibeno Stakeholders have strongly dismissed a recent caveat emptor issued by the Eket People’s Union (EPU), warning the public against land transactions with Eket within Ibeno territory.
The stakeholders described the move as legally unfounded, historically misleading and deliberately provocative.
Secretary of Ibeno Clan Council, Chief Udofia Okon Udofia, in a firm reaction at the weekend in Ibeno condemned what he termed EPU’s “resort to intimidation and misinformation,” insisting that the notice was an attempt to manufacture a dispute where none exists.
He queried the basis of the warning, asking pointedly: “Caveat emptor on what land?”
According to him, EPU has failed to identify any specific parcel of land it claims ownership of within Ibeno territory.
“One cannot issue a caveat on land one neither owns nor has ever legally owned,” Chief Udofia said, adding that neither Eket nor Esit Eket has ever possessed, occupied, administered or lawfully acquired any portion of Ibeno ancestral land.
He stressed that historical and legal records clearly establish Ibeno ownership of the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve long before colonial administration, noting that such ownership has never been extinguished.
Chief Udofia recalled that, land ownership east of the Qua Iboe River was conclusively settled in 1918 by the Privy Council in London, then the highest judicial authority, in Ntiaro and Ikpak v. Ibok Etukakpan and Edohoeket (1918).
The judgment, he said, unequivocally recognized Ibeno people as the ancestral owners of the land now administratively referred to as the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve.
“This judgment was neither ambiguous nor conditional. It remains binding and has never been overturned,” he emphasized.
On claims relating to the Forest Reserve Order of 1930, Chief Udofia dismissed EPU’s interpretation as either ignorant or deliberately deceptive, clarifying that the ordinance did not convert the land to Crown Land, extinguish native title, or transfer ownership to Eket.
“The land was merely reserved for conservation purposes. Ownership and royalty rights remained with the Ibeno people, a fact borne out by decades of royalty collection and administrative control,” he stated.
He further explained that under the Land Use Act of 1978, the Ibeno people retain deemed rights of occupancy over their ancestral lands, dismissing claims of an “Eket versus Ibeno” court case as historically false.
“The case often cited was between two Ibeno brothers — Chief Ntiedo and Chief Ikpak. Edohoeket, an Eket man, was not a claimant but merely a witness. A court cannot grant reliefs not sought; it is not Father Christmas,” Chief Udofia remarked.
He disclosed that after a 1980 judgment, Eket interests filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Calabar but later abandoned it and questioned, why the appeal was not pursued, alleging instead that, political elites later collaborated with the administration of former Governor Udom Emmanuel to illegally redraw boundaries through a so-called remapping exercise aimed at ceding Ibeno land to Eket and Onna Local Government Areas.
“Political maneuvering cannot replace judicial legitimacy,” he warned, insisting there is no land dispute between Ibeno and Eket over the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve, contrary to EPU’s claims.
Chief Udofia urged investors to disregard the EPU’s caveat and proceed lawfully with their investments, reaffirming Ibeno’s commitment to peace, development and support for projects such as the Ibom Deep Seaport.
He noted that the Esit Urua community, previously used as a proxy in hostilities against Ibeno, has embraced peace and cooperation.
As a gesture of goodwill, the Ibeno Community Development Trust Fund (PIA) recently donated a 500KVA transformer to Esit Urua.
“This is a tangible act of peace and development, something Eket never achieved despite years of antagonism,” he said, adding that both Ibeno and Esit Urua desire peace, not propaganda, and development, not crisis.
Concluding, Chief Udofia declared that Ibeno land is not in contention with Eket, as ownership is firmly grounded in customary history, colonial records, judicial authority and statutory law.
“Peaceful coexistence is welcome, but territorial revisionism is rejected. Dialogue must be lawful, honest and community-driven — not imposed through press statements or political shortcuts,” he said.
He dismissed the EPU’s caveat emptor as null, void and misleading, insisting it carries no legal weight and cannot rewrite history, overturn court judgments or dispossess Ibeno of its ancestral land.
“Ibeno stands firm not on rhetoric, but on law, history and truth.”
