AN OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY, GOVERNOR UMO ENO, ON STUBBS CREEK (AKOIYAK) AND THE RIGHTS OF THE EKID PEOPLE

AN OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY, GOVERNOR UMO ENO, ON STUBBS CREEK (AKOIYAK) AND THE RIGHTS OF THE EKID PEOPLE

Your Excellency,

I write as concerned citizen of Akwa Ibom State and as a member of the Ekid nation, compelled by recent statements credited to you 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).

This letter is not written in defiance of development, but in defence of law, history, and justice.

1. EKID IS NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT, EKID IS AGAINST ILLEGALITY

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.

2. STUBBS CREEK IS NOT “GOVERNMENT LAND ” BY FIAT

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.

3. THE 1918 PRIVY COUNCIL JUDGMENT STILL STANDS

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.

For the avoidance of doubt:

* 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.

4. CALLING LANDOWNERS “TERRORISTS ” IS DANGEROUS AND UNJUST.*

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. 

5. INVESTORS WERE WARNED BECAUSE GOVERNMENT ACTIONS CAUSED THE CRISIS.

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.

6. DIALOGUE CANNOT REPLACE THE RULE OF LAW

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.

7. DEVELOPMENT NUMBERS DO NOT Lie

Your Excellency, let us speak plainly.

In your third year in office, Ekid land has received:

* One Model Primary School.

* One Model Primary Health Centre.

That is commendable but it is grossly inadequate.

* Eket and Esit-Eket:

Host major oil and gas assets.

* Bear environmental burdens.

* Generate enormous revenue for the State and Federation.

Ekid lays the golden egg.

A people that lay the golden egg deserve more than symbolic gestures.

8. FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU MY EXCELLENCY

● Why were Ekid people rebuked publicly in the presence of those seeking to take Ekid land?

● Why was no public reprimand issued to agencies and investors who proceeded without consulting Eket and Esit-Eket who are the host communities?

● Does dignity still matter in governance, especially when speaking to a people with legitimate grievances?

● Is it wrong for Eket and Esit-Eket to ask for compensation on their ancestral land?

● If asking for compensation is wrong in Ekid, why is it acceptable in other parts of Akwa Ibom State?

● Has the 1918 Privy Council Judgment been overturned, and if not, why is it treated as irrelevant? And why are you not obeying the ruling?

● Does a peace committee override a subsisting court judgment?

● On what legal or moral basis are landowners asking for recognition described as “terrorists”?

● What message does such language send to young people taught that lawful advocacy is not a crime?

● Will Akwa Ibom be built on bulldozers and anger, or on law, consent, and fairness?

● When Ekid youths read this chapter years from now, will they say their Governor Pastor Umo Eno had listened?

Your Excellency,

These questions are not threats.

They are not sabotage.

They are the language of a people seeking dignity within development.

The Ekid people remain open to dialogue but dialogue anchored on truth, law, and respect.

History awaits your answers my Excellency.

9. A FINAL APPEAL TO LEADERSHIP AND STATESMANSHIP.

Your Excellency, you stood on Ekid soil to inaugurate a project meant to serve Ekid people. That moment should have been one of reassurance, not confrontation.

We urge you to:

* Cease further allocations within Stubbs Creek pending full resolution.

* Respect and implement the 1918 Privy Council Judgment.

* Recognise Ekid as rightful landowners and engage them as partners, not adversaries.

* Withdraw inflammatory language that labels legitimate land claims as terrorism.

* Establish a legal compliance and restitution framework, not a political committee, to resolve the matter.

Ekid is not against Akwa Ibom. Ekid is not against development. Ekid is for justice, legality, and peace.

A government that truly seeks peace does not silence landowners and call us terrorists, it listens to them. A government that truly seeks development does not bulldoze history, it builds on justice.

The Ekid people will continue to defend their ancestral heritage peacefully, lawfully, resolutely and we will give our last into it.

WE ARE NOT TERRORISTS YOUR EXCELLENCY

✍️🏾 Peters Buhari

New Born Journalist