Ibeno Elders Fault Ekid Union’s Claims, Defend Government Authority Over Stubbs Creek Forest 

Sunday January 18, 2026
www.thenewsdesk.ng

By Dennis UDOMA, Uyo

The Ibeno Clan Council has strongly rejected submissions made by the Ekid People’s Union (EPU) before the Akwa Ibom State Land Use Allocation Committee, describing them as distorted, misleading and capable of undermining peace, lawful governance and investment in the state.

Speaking on behalf of the Ibeno Clan Council, its spokesman, Chief Udofia Okon Udofia, said the EPU presentation at the committee sitting in Uyo on January 16, 2025 was built on what he called historical revisionism, misinterpretation of the law and inflammatory threats against government and legitimate investors.

According to Chief Udofia, the Ekid People’s Union lacks any constitutional or statutory authority to claim ownership, control or veto powers over land administration in Akwa Ibom State.

He stressed that powers of attorney allegedly issued by private individuals or traditional institutions cannot override the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Land Use Act or the statutory powers of the Governor, who holds land in trust for the people.

He faulted repeated references to a purported 1918 Privy Council judgment which the EPU claims confers perpetual ownership of the entire Stubbs Creek Forest, describing the claim as legally misleading and historically dishonest.

Chief Udofia maintained that no colonial-era judgment grants eternal proprietary rights over a forest reserve duly declared and managed by government under valid statutes.

He added that any such judgment, where it exists, would have been context-specific and cannot supersede post-independence constitutional frameworks, forest reservation laws or subsequent statutory control by government.

The Ibeno Clan Council reaffirmed that the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve is a legally constituted reserve created through valid ordinances and gazettes, noting that once land is reserved, its control, management and allocation rest exclusively with government.

Chief Udofia emphasized that alleged ownership claims do not translate into possessory or allocative rights and that government does not require the consent of any ethnic group to regulate or allocate land within a duly constituted forest reserve for public interest purposes.

He also dismissed claims that government never acquired the Stubbs Creek Forest, describing them as demonstrably false.

According to him, reservation itself constitutes statutory control and limitation of rights, while compensation, where applicable, remains a policy issue and not an admission of perpetual ownership.

He noted that the law does not require government to repeatedly reacquire land already under valid statutory control.

On references to ExxonMobil’s Qua Iboe Terminal (QIT) as a precedent, Chief Udofia said the comparison was selective and misleading, stressing that each land transaction is governed by its own historical and legal circumstances.

He warned that past administrative decisions do not bind present governments, particularly where overriding public interest and economic development are involved, and insisted that QIT does not establish a legal template requiring investors to negotiate with self-appointed ethnic custodians.

The Clan Council also condemned the labeling of the BUA refinery project as “criminal encroachment,” describing such language as reckless, defamatory and dangerous.

Chief Udofia said BUA is acting on allocations and approvals lawfully issued by government and that any dispute over title remains a civil matter, not a criminal one.

He cautioned that threats of “resistance until eternity” amount to economic sabotage rhetoric capable of destabilising the state.

Reiterating the provisions of the Land Use Act, Chief Udofia noted that all land is vested in the Governor to be held in trust for the people and that industrial developments such as refineries, petrochemical plants and mining projects clearly fall within overriding public interest.

He described the EPU’s interpretation of the Act as legally untenable and contrary to settled law.

On claims that land must be dereserved before allocation, the Ibeno Clan Council maintained that dereservation is an administrative tool solely within the discretion of government and not a process subject to approval or veto by any ethnic group, adding that, any attempt to impose extra-statutory conditions, Chief Udofia said, is invalid and unlawful.

He further condemned statements suggesting that existing or future structures would be demolished or stopped, describing them as naked threats that border on incitement.

According to him, only courts of law and statutory authorities have the power to order demolition, and such rhetoric undermines public peace and investor confidence.

Chief Udofia described as provocative and ahistorical the sweeping claim that even lands currently occupied by Ibeno people belong to Ekid, stressing that Ibeno is a constitutionally recognised Local Government Area, whose territorial integrity cannot be erased by ethnic declarations or petitions to security agencies.

He concluded by urging the Land Use Allocation Committee to discount submissions founded on misapplied colonial judgments, reaffirm the authority of the Land Use Act and the Governor, protect lawful investments from intimidation and encourage the resolution of disputes through the courts rather than coercion.

“The future of Akwa Ibom State lies in law, order, development and peaceful coexistence, not in the weaponization of history or threats against government and investors,” Chief Udofia said.