“Oro people are Ibibios?” By Edet Ating

Whoever said or is saying that “Oro people are Ibibios”, is either not very knowledgeable about the history of West Africa and Africa at large; or the person is saying this for cheap and myopic political reason. On the other hand, he or she is saying it out of inferiority complex, to deliberately spite on the Oro people. No human being would have known the past if there was no genius, sincere and dynamic manner or method of chronological account of past events about a people, institution, country, and so on. Even human evolution is relayed to us based on this manner or method.
We are all aware of the ‘big bang theory’, which scientists had proved to us to have started the entire universe, comprises the earth, the sun and the stars over fourteen billion years ago. It is the same method or manner we learnt how Christianity and Islam started in the world and in this part of the world in particular. If there was no history we would not have heard the great pyramids and Pharaohs, the Egyptian mummies. It is equally based on history that we know and believe that science and technology and democracy began in Greece. It is also a dynamic and historical fact that the English Literature written by Williams Shakespeare such as Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar and many others are based on Roman history.
It was a scientific account that further convincingly proved that the sun rises in the morning, crosses the sky during the day and then sets in the night; that one year which is normally three hundred and sixty five days is a one trip of the earth travelling around the sun. It is on the same account that it is proved empirically that a peculiar specie of food such as ewe-ekpang, culture such as afikayid, eyakpe, dialect and behavioural attitudes particularly in wrestling bouts emphasized the fact that the origin of Oro has nothing to do with another ethnic tribe in the southern Nigeria of West Africa.
The ancestral origin of the Oro people is genuinely traced from the Bantu stock of Usahadit in the Cameroon. Their migration expedition took the Oro people to settle with another tribe, the Efiks. In Nsedun, where the Oro people on their last migration expedition settled with the Efiks, they inter-married and expanded and were obviously included in one of the eight clans of the Efiks kingdom before they finally migrated across the Cross River to the other side where they finally settled. In the course of their expansion westward to the hinterland from the coastline, the Oro people then interacted with the Ibibios who were very dutiful and helpful to the Oro people particularly in most labourious services. In the course of this interaction, they inter-married and started sharing cultural ties and heritage.
It is authentically proved that as early as 1890, the Oro people, having patterned their migration along the seacoast all the way from the Cameroon, have detached themselves from further migration exploits and stiffly willing to carve a niche for themselves as a distinct group of people. Being small in number, the Oro people were able to knit themselves together in order to protect and safeguard their rare and unique characteristics and possessions. They continue to forge ahead in classic and eternal unity.
Following the trend of these people, the entire world was not then surprised at the emergence of Oron Union in 1925, the first of its kind in the South Eastern part of Nigeria. In this sequence therefore, it is absolutely difficult to establish that Oro and Ibibio people share the same ancestry. Inasmuch as it is scripturally believed that all human beings are descended from a common ancestor, Adam and Eve, but it is scientifically proved, too, that there is theory of evolution by natural selection, where human beings evolved and changed over time. That is an indisputable reason for differences in various human beings.
It boils down to the fact that Oro people evolved over time with their genetic traits and within the span of time adopted different and unique identity for themselves. There is no trace that Oro ancestral origin is shared with any ethnic group in Akwa Ibom State. If any person is not satisfied with this raw fact, the person is challenged by this columnist to call for genomic (genetic) mapping across the three major ethnic tribes in Akwa Ibom State, so that this issue of Oro people being Ibibios will be given a final rest or death by the protagonists. To me, it is not necessary at all.
For only Almighty God’s divine reasons, Oro people are located in this part of the world; and for political convenience, Oro people are found in Akwa Ibom State. They are therefore bonafide progenitors of Akwa Ibom State and they do have a share and a stake in the management and governance of the State, like the other two major ethnic tribes of Ibibio and the Annang. Coming from a distinct ancestry or source does not make Oro people foreigners in Akwa Ibom State.
The columnist is always an advocate of peace and unity among the three major tribes in order to bring even economic, political and social development to Akwa Ibom State. I do not intend at this time to join issues with whoever belched that garbage “Oro people are Ibibios” for complex and political reason at this material time, when Oro people are genuinely looking at their ripe and rightful governorship bid in 2015. It is not true, therefore, that Oro people are Ibibios. It is genetically faulty to say that Oro people are Ibibios.

Mboho Expels Two Over Misconduct -Disclaims Sylvanus Okon

By Franklyn Isong

Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio has expelled two of its members in the USA chapter over what it called “acts of insubordination and gross misconduct,” saying that the dismissed members caused an offensive letter to be issued to the President.

The former High Commissioner for USA/Canada of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio, Akparawa Sylvanus Okon and the Secretary-General of the USA chapter, Akparawa Joseph Ibokette, had sent a letter to the international headquarters of the association in Nigeria, informing it of it (USA) chapter declaring autonomy from the headquarters. The letter which was signed by the Akparawa Ibokette, asserted that the USA chapter has elected Akparawa Sylvanus Okon as it interim president.

But in what seems to be a counter reaction, another letter emerged from the USA chapter of the body singed by the trio of Akparawa (Prof.) Maurice Ekwo, High Commissioner; Akparawa Godwin Ekpene, Deputy High Commissioner; Akparawa Essien Isong, Director of Protocol, to the mboho international headquarters in Uyo, Nigeria, disowning the earlier claims of autonomy, declaring the loyalty and support of the USA/Canada chapter to the headquarters.

Barely a week later, the international headquarters of the association issued a letter expelling the duo of Sylvanus Okon and Joseph Ibokette from the association.

According to the expulsion letter singed by Akparawa Stephen Ibia, Secretary General, and obtained by Weekend Insight on Wednesday, the expulsion letter read in full; “Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio was established on 1st August 1987 as a socio-cultural Organization for the preservation, promotion and protection of the culture, identity and dignity of Ibibio people. In Mboho’s 25 years of existence, the organization has remained one indivisible group with one President all over the world. MBOHO has High Commissioners and Chapter Chairmen in designated areas all over the world as approved by the Central Working Committee to assist in implementing its programmes.
“The activities of the organization are always in line with the objectives and policy trust approved by the Central Working Committee (CWC) and the General Assembly. Mboho operates a unitary system of government with a unitary Constitution with one President as provided in Section 8 of the Constitution. Whereas Chapters are authorized to have bye-laws, where the provisions of the Chapter bye-laws conflict with that of the Constitution, the Constitution prevails.

“The current President is the 8th in succession and as provided in Section 10 (i) of the Constitution, he serves a single tenure of four years without a second term.

“After you had served as High Commissioner for six years, it became necessary to appoint another officer to succeed you for purposes of developing many leaders within the Organization for the service of Ibibio race.

“Instead of your accepting Mboho’s decision in good faith, you resorted to subversive activities in an attempt to perpetuate yourself in office for your personal gains.

“It is of note that while you held office as High Commissioner, you made yourself sole administrator of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio in USA and when you were invited to appear before the Executive Council, Central Working Committee and the disciplinary Committee to defend yourself over arbitrary actions taken, you, shunned the very organization and the very President that appointed you.

“As if the above acts of insubordination and gross misconduct were not enough, you caused an offensive letter to be issued to the President who re-appointed you.

“To add pains to injury, you championed a media war on the pages of news papers and the Internet purporting to have split the organization for purpose of actualizing your inordinate and sit-tight in office ambition. You equally declared yourself as the Interim National President as a dissident member to create confusion and cause anarchy, a thing unheard of in the 25 years of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio existence.

“In view of the above and other acts of gross misconduct by you, having been removed from office as High Commissioner in line with Section 13 of the Constitution of the Organization, the Central Working Committee of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio in the exercise of its powers as contained in the Constitution, has approved your expulsion from the Organization and hereby expels you accordingly, with effect from Friday, 18th November 2011. You are to hand over all properties of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio in your possession including, the Certificate of Registration, Constitution and the Byelaws, MMI Cap etc, to Akparawa (Prof.) Maurice Ekwo, Mboho’s High Commissioner to USA/Canada, failure of which Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio will employ all avenues to deal with the matter decisively.”

While in the expulsion letter of Joseph Ibokette, the body said; “By an undated letter signed by you and published in the Nigerian Dailies and the Internet, you purported to separate Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio in USA from Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio in Nigeria without the consent/approval of the Central Working Committee and the General Assembly.

“This action of yours by all standards is a contravention of (Section 23) of the Constitution of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio. It amounts to secession and is capable of disintegrating the Organization.

“Consequently, the Central Working Committee of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio at its meeting held on Thursday 17th November 2011 had approved your expulsion from the organization with effect from Friday 18th November, 2011 having removed you from office in keeping with (Section 13) of the Constitution of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio.

“You are to hand over all properties of MBOHO in your possession including, the MMI Cap, Constitution etc to Mboho’s High Commissioner to USA, Akparawa (Prof) Maurice Ekwo without any delay.”

Meanwhile, the Mboho headquarters have issued a disclaimer on Mr. Sylvanus Okon, warning the general public from transacting any business with him in the name of the organization.

“The disclaimer read; “This is to inform the general public, members of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio Nigeria, USA and the world over that Mr. Sylvanus Okon who was once a member of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio USA Chapter is no longer a member of this great Ibibio Association.

“He was accordingly indicted by the Central Working Committee of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio for gross misconduct and subsequently expelled from MMI on the 18th November, 2011. Therefore, any person, group or corporate organization that transacts any business with him in the name of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio, do so at his/her or their own risk. General Public to take note.”

Itu federal constituency tussle: ACN survives second appeal, court clarifies section 285(6)

BY NDON ASIAN

Five days after the Supreme Court judgment on Udoedehe and Akpabio, another court of higher authority has taken a swipe at judges who presided over the dismissal of many petitions at the Election Petition Tribunals, for relying on technicalities.
The latest criticism came on Thursday 17th November, 2011 in Calabar, when Hon. Justice Uzo I. Ndukwe Anyanwu who led a three member panel of the Court of Appeal in its unanimous decision frowned at the failure of Hon. Justice Abdulahi Yusuf, Hon. Justice Matilda Abrakasa Ayemieye and Hon. Justice Olumuyiwa S. Olusanya to comply with an earlier order of the Court of Appeal, remitting petition no EPT/AKS/HR/1/2011 for retrial.
In the petition, Mr. Idongesit G. Udokpo of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) is disputing the claims of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) which declared that Hon. Kenneth Archibong won the Itu Federal Constituency election on the platform of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Briefly, the petition was initially dismissed by the Abdulahi Yusuf chaired election petition tribunal for applying for the issuance of pre-hearing notice out of time. Then, counsel to the petitioner, Barr. Samuel Ikpo, had applied for the issuance of pre-hearing notice where upon the secretary complied with the directive of the tribunal issuing hearing notices to parties for pre-hearing session.
On the 11th July, the 1st respondent filed motion on notice praying the tribunal to set aside the hearing notice for pre-trial session and to dismiss the petition for failure to comply with paragraph 18(1) and 47(2) of the 1st schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
The tribunal ruled that the Appellant was within time as it held thus, “We have considered the submission of the parties and we hold that there is merit in the application hence it is granted as prayed”.
Barely 5 days later, on the 16th of July, 2011, the same 1st Respondent filed another motion praying the tribunal to dismiss the petition earlier allowed, on the grounds of non-compliance with paragraph 18(1) of the 1st schedule to the Electoral Act. Counsel to the 1st respondent had premised his applications on an intriguing sequence, saying that the first motion was subsequent upon the reply of the 1st respondent while the second followed the reply of the 3rd respondent.
Samuel Ikpo Esq. had argued vehemently that the application for pre-hearing should be done within 7 days after the reply of the last respondent. Arguments were taken. The tribunal in a curious twist departed from its earlier judgment, and dismissed the petition.
A disatisfied Samuel Ikpo Esq. had told Weeekend Insight Newspaper that the tribunal erred in law by sitting on appeal over its earlier judgment on the application instead of allowing the 1st respondent to appeal to a higher court.
Counsel to the petitioner headed to the Court of Appeal, Calabar, which allowed the appeal in its 16th September 2011 judgment. The case was sent back to Uyo for trial.
Back in Uyo, the 1st and 3rd respondents respectively brought separate motions on September 26th, 2011 praying tribunal to set aside the order for issuance of pre-hearing notices and to dismiss the petition for not complying with paragraph 18(1), and failure to seek and obtain leave before applying for pre-hearing session.
The two motions, being similar in wording and prayers, was consolidated and arguments taken. Interestingly, during argument counsel to Idongesit Udokpo had brought to the notice of the tribunal that the full panel of the Court of Appeal, Jos, had on the 22nd of August, 2011 held that leave was not required, and that a letter was sufficient to activate pre-hearing.
Samuel Ikpo Esq further urged the tribunal to exercise restraint until the following day, 13th October 2011 when the Court of Appeal shall have ruled on a similar matter involving Senator Aloysius Etok, but the tribunal refused, went ahead to dismiss the petition for the second time on the 12th of October 2011, relying on the appeal judgment involving state Governor of Akwa Ibom in petition No EPT/AKS/Gov/15/2011.
The following day, the Court of Appeal in Calabar delivered judgment on the Ikot Ekpene Senatorial District appeal involving Dr. Any Asikpo and Senator Aloysius Etok relying on the Jos appeal court judgment. The Court upheld Dr. Asikpo’s appeal.
A furiously disappointed Samuel Ikpo Esq. returned back to the Court of Appeal for the second time to file notice of appeal on the 19th of October, 2011 on two grounds.
Ikpo formulated two issues for determination (a) whether the leave of the tribunal was required before application for the issuance of pre-hearing notice could be made.
He submitted in his argument that application under paragraph 18(1) of the 1st schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) did not require the leave of court. He relied on the judgment of the lower tribunal in the case of Aliyu Brahim Gebi Vs Alhaji Garuba Dahiru and 3 others delivered on 22nd August 2011 where it was held that “In he result we are of the view that the letter to the tribunal as in this case comprise and carries out the intention and requirement of paragraph 18(1) of the 1st schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).
To this, the full panel of the Court of Appeal Jos reacted thus, “Without much ado, I would want to believe that the above findings of the lower tribunal are rather unassailable. And my reason for saying so is not far fetched”.
On issue (2) “Whether the lower tribunal was right in failing or refusing to follow and apply the binding decisions of the Court of Appeal (Jos Division) in Aliyu Ibrahim Gebi Vs Alhaji Garuba Dahiru and 3 others in CA/J/EP/HR/127/2011 delivered on 22nd August 2011 contrary to the well established principles of stare decisis”, Ikpo urged the court to hold that the lower tribunal was duty bound to have followed and applied the decision of the Court of Appeal, Jos in Aliyu Ibrahim Gebi’s case and resolve the issue in favour of the appellant.
Counsel to 1st respondent, David Obande Esq, filed notice of intention to rely on preliminary objection. Order 10. His objection rested on two legs.
(1) “That the appeal is incompetent and should be struck out”. He argued that the “Appeal is a continuation of the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant since the 30th of May 2011. On the 29th of October, 2011 the said petition became 180 days since filing and naturally became time barred. The petition having lapsed by effusion of time, this appeal has become totally unnecessary since whatever the outcome of this appeal, the petition remains inchoate, spent, expired”.
(2) “That no sufficient materials have been furnished the courts to enable this court disturb the order of dismissal made by the tribunal, thus rendering this appeal an academic exercise”.
Apparently the tortuous path the petition has followed in returning to the Court of Appeal a second time seem to help in interpreting the constitution to give a definite direction to the proper understanding of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
Until the Court of Appeal, Calabar judgment on section 285(6) as it affected petition No EPT/AKS/HR/1/2011, no court in the entire country has pronounced on that section of the 1999 constitution, as altered. Just like “the tribunal misunderstood the situations where leave of court should be obtained before an application can be made”, the tribunals also seem to manifest a complete lack of understanding of section 285(6), many analyst argue.
In delivering judgment, the three learned judges of the Court of Appeal did put the record straight as it stated thus, “In the instant case, the tribunal delivered its judgment on 12th October, 2011 within the 180 days envisaged by section 285(6) of the 1999 constitution (as amended). The 180 days was supposed to have expired on 27th October, 2011.
“I therefore hold that the tribunal’s judgment delivered as on 12th October, 2011 was still within time. Does section 285(6) of the 1999 constitution affect the Appeal filed in this Court?
“To answer this question reference must be made to section 285(7) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) which provides as follows.
“An appeal from a decision of an election petition tribunal or court shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of the delivery of judgment of the tribunal.
“The judgment of the tribunal was delivered on 12th October, 2011 and this court has up to 11th December, 2011 to deliver its judgment. I therefore hold that section 285(6) does not affect this appeal as it is so filed. Section 285(7) is the subsection relevant to this court. With section 285(7) this court is still within time to deliver its judgment”.
Hon. Justice Joseph Tine Tur, in his judgment went further to say “I shall add some comments of mine because the appeal raises an interesting issue relating to the jurisdiction of election tribunals to entertain petitions remitted to them by appellate courts for hearing or trial de novo, namely, whether the 180 days stipulated under section 285(6) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered, for delivering judgment having expired, they shall decline jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
“There is no doubt that on 16th day of September, 2011 the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division, remitted this very petition to the election tribunal for retrial on the merit. An appeal is a proceeding undertaken to have a decision of a lover court or tribunal reconsidered or reviewed by a higher authority for possible confirmation or reversal. In most cases, where the judgment of the lower court or tribunal is set aside and a new trial is ordered unconditionally the appellate court intends that the suit shall be heard “de novo” meaning “anew”.
Hon. Justice Joseph Tine Tur delve into the Black law Dictionary to define the phrase hearing de novo as a complete new beginning “as if the original hearing had not taken place”.
He maintained that “the election petition tribunal from which this appeal emanated being subordinate to the Court of Appeal was bound to enforce the orders of this court made on 16th September, 2011 that the petition should be heard or retried de novo. Without a hearing no judgment can be delivered within 180 days as stipulated under section 285(6) and (7) of the constitution”.
He concluded that having examined the judgment of the tribunal, the Court of Appeal has arrived at the decision that the appeal once again succeeds, and the petition remitted to a tribunal differently constituted to hear and deliver judgment on merit in 180 days as stipulated by the constitution.
On the second issue of seeking leave, the court agreed with the Supreme Court judgment. It drew the attention of parties to the fact that paragraph 18(1) is clear and unambiguous. “There is no where leave was mentioned in the application of pre-hearing notice. In ALIYU IBRAHIM GEBI VS. ALHAJI GARUBA DAHIRU and 3 ORS (SUPRA), the Court held that an application may be made by a letter requesting for pre-hearing. This has also been endorsed by the Supreme Court which went further to state that an oral application to the Court is also sufficient”.

IFIM IBOM IBIBIO ADVERTORIAL ON OKU IBOM STOOL

PRESS CONFERENCE HELD AT ASAN IBIBIO ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2011, BY IBIBIO PARAMOUNT RULERS AGAINST THE PURPORTED PLANS BY THE GOVERNOR OF AKWA IBOM STATE, CHIEF GODSWILL OBOT AKPABIO, TO USE THE STATE FUNDS TO SUPER IMPOSE EDIDEM AKPABIO UDO UKPA AS OKUIBOM ON IBIBIO PEOPLE.

Distinguished gentle men of the press, we welcome you all to this press conference held today, Friday, November 25, 2011, by Ibibio Paramount Rulers who are constitutionally the kingmakers of Okuibom Ibibio.
Our attention has been drawn to the media campaign going on in the state and in the internet that the state governor, Chief Godswill Obot Akpabio, has adopted the Paramount Ruler of ONNA Local Government Area, Edidem Akpabio Udo Ukpa, as the Okuibom Ibom Ibibio III. The report further have it that governor Godswill Akpabio is planning to use the state apparatus, instrument and resources to impose Edidem Ukpa on the people of Ibibio race.
Ordinarily, these report would have been dismissed with a wave of the hand, but for the purpose of correcting any negative impression the report must have created in the minds of the people of the state and in particular, Ibibio sons and daughters, who upon getting hint of the purported plans, have inundated us with unabated calls and inquiries to ascertain the true position of Ifim Ibom Ibibio on the matter. We are to addressing this press conference in order to put the record straight, and therefore state as follows:
1. That the Paramount Ruler of ONNA LGA, Edidem Akpabio Udo Ukpa, had ceased to be a member of ifim ibom Ibibio from July 6, 2011, when he was expelled for gross misconduct and insubordination to the leadership of Ifim Ibom Ibibio.

2. The reason for his expulsion was that, three days after the burial of His Eminence, Edidem Robert James Obot, the Okuibom Ibom Ibibio III, Edidem Akpabio Ukpa went on air to declare himself as the Okuibom Ibibio III, without recourse to Ibibio traditions and customs and the constitution of Ifim Ibibio.

3. Okuibom Stool is a revered position in Ibibio land which is normally occupied by the President of Ifim Ibom Ibibio, which is the Supreme Council of Ibibio Traditional Rulers.

4. The process of selecting of Okuibom Ibibio has never been done in the government house as there are spelt out rules guiding the process and procedures as provided in the constitution of Ifim Ibom Ibibio which is NOT governed by the Traditional Rulers Laws of Akwa Ibom State.

5. For the avoidance of doubt, in the history of Ibibio people and in the records of Ifim Ibom Ibibio, the Okuibom I, was Edidem Udo Uyota Akpabio, who hailed from ONNA LGA; Okuibom II, was Usonyin Okon Ekpo Ekpo, from Ibesikpo Asutan LGA, while Okuibom III, was His Eminence Edidem Robert James Obot, from Nsit Ubium LGA. History cannot repeat itself, and so Ibibio people cannot have another OKUIBOM III.

6. Edidem Akpabio Ukpa cannot on his own ascend the revered throne of Ifim Ibom Ibibio by gathering his villagers to impersonate Ifim Ibom Ibibio and paraded them before the state governor and newsmen as Paramount Rulers and members of Ifim Ibom Ibibio.

7. We must observe here that when our Annang brothers (Paramount Rulers) selected/elected Itai Afe Annang, there was no intrusion from government or government agents, the governor did not impose his preferred candidate on his kinsmen, the Paramount Rulers of Annang extraction. And when the Oro Paramount Rulers selected/elected Ahta Oro for Oro Nation, neither the governor nor his agents imposed any government preferred candidate on the people of Oro nation. This was so because these stools are traditional in nature and kind, which must be devoid of any form of politics or interference from government since they are not governed by the traditional rulers laws of Akwa Ibom State.

8. The traditional leaders of these ethnic groups have their traditional ways of selecting their leaders which does not include politicking, campaigns, electioneering and the involvement of state government apparatus.

9. We hereby declare and STRONGLY WARN against government interference and advise the state governor, Chief Godswill Obot Akpabio, to stay clear from Ibibio traditional matters especially as it concerns Ifim Ibom Ibibio and Okuibom Ibibio stool as there are other important state matters that are demanding his urgent attention.

10. That the state funds should be used for other useful ventures that would yield immediate and direct benefit to the government and people of Akwa ibom State instead of wasting it on matters that the government do not have authority.

11. That Ibibio people shall resist any attempt by the state governor, Chief Godswill Akpabio, or his agents to impose Edidem Akpabio Ukpa and or bankroll his insurrection.

12. We want to appeal to the good people of Ibibio race both in Akwa Ibom State and in Diaspora to remain calm, peaceful, law-abiding and discountenance these media propaganda as the state governor knows his limits and would not allow himself to be dragged into Ibibio traditional matters under any guise and for the interest of peace and harmony in Akwa Ibom State.

13. We hereby restate unequivocally the expulsion of the Paramount Ruler of ONNA, Edidem Akpabio Udo Ukpa, from Ifim Ibom Ibibio and further declare that he remains so expelled.

14. It must be noted that all matters relating to Ibibio traditional institutions, customs and traditions usually MUST take place at ASAN Ibibio, the ancestral shrine of the Ibibios, therefore anything done in the name of Ibibio outside Asan Ibibio is null and void and of no effect whatsoever and is questionable.

15. Finally all Ibibio sons and daughters are accordingly WARNED not to participate in the purported ceremony.
Signed:
For the Supreme Council Of Ibibio Traditional Rulers
1. HRM, Edidem Ime Dickson Umoette
Paramount Ruler of Etinan LGA ..…………………………………

2. HRM, Okuku (Dr.) Ime Udousoro Inyang
Paramount Ruler of Ibiono Ibom LGA ………………………………….

3. HRM, Edidem (Pastor) E. B. A. Ekanem
Paramount Ruler of Uruan LGA …………………………………..

4. HRM, Edidem Edet Akpan Inyang, AMBP
Paramount Ruler of Itu LGA …..………………………………

5. HRM, Edidem (Surv.) Edem Silas Akpan
Paramount Ruler of Uyo LGA …………………………………..

6. HRM, Edidem A. U. Ntuen
Paramount Ruler of Nsit Atai LGA ..………………………………..

7. HRM, Edidem Manasseh S. Akpan, JP
Paramount Ruler of Nsit Ibom LGA ……………………………………

8. HRM, Edidem Udo Effiong Akpan
Paramount Ruler of Ini LGA ……………………………………

UNIVERSITY DON SLAMS AKPABIO

Apparently worried by the tensed situation in UYO, a former university Don, DR.Nsini Eseneowo has said the ongoing court battle between Engr.Frank Okon and Governor Akpabio is, perhaps, the worst nightmare Governor Akpabio has ever experienced.

Eseneowo disclosed this recently during a one day seminar on integrated farming scheme in UYO.

According to him the alleged suspected case of forgery and intention to cheat during the last election by AKPABIO should not be swept under the carpet ;instead stiffer steps must be taken against the culprit ,without which it will only succeed in impoverishing the people of AKWA IBOM .I felt it is the law of karma that is driving AKPABIO from pillar to post in a bid to escape the long arms of the law .He lamented that the resources that would have been used to better the lives of AKWA IBOM rural masses is now channeled into this battle of Armageddon by AKPABIO just to extricate himself from the searchlight of anti graft agencies .

According to him, it is very clear that Governor Akpabio is bent on wasting the State resources for his dubious political agenda. The main culprit in this matter seems to be the governor who had thwarted the rules of law, intriguingly because he is under the shadow of Dame Patience Jonathan who is blind to the financial crimes committed by AKPABIO to perpetrate himself at all cost in office.

The former university Don further observed that “the political romance between President Goodluck Jonathan and AKPABIO is all Greek to me”.AKPABIO is certainly milking AKWA IBOM dry and wrecks some lives by investing heavily in South Africa and distributing liability jeep vehicles to our judges to help him ship- wreck the course of justice here, this is bribe in the open square ,and several people would still fall into the long dug cesspit of AKPABIO’s administration.

Meanwhile, it would be recall that ,prior to the April election, AKPABIO was denied clearance by the party .President Jonathan is said to have allegedly soften his previous criticism of AKPABIO’s behaviour ,hoping to garner billions of naira for his Presidential election campaign .In fact AKPABIO and his acolytes have “turned the dictum of ABRAHAM LINCOLN upside down ,making democracy the government of politicians ,for politicians and by politicians.PDP is a party without a road map.The crisis of confidence is brewing across the State .My Prayer is that AKWA IBOM people should pray hard so that this heinous nightmare may be nip in the bud.

VIA GLOBAL CONCORD

2015 Gov’ship Goes to Oro Not Eket Sen. Dist.

The Movement for Democracy and Equity, MODE, has reacted to the insinuations in some quarters across the state that the 2015 governorship position in Akwa Ibom State would go to Eket Senatorial District, not specifically to Oro Nation.

The reaction of the movement was registered on Wednesday, November 2, 2011, in Uyo, when it played host to leaders of six youth groups from Oro Nation who came to support and identify with the movement.
The group, speaking through its chancellor, Mr. Etebong Isong, said that such insinuations are entirely pretences full of the gimmicks to will the 2015 governorship of the state back to the Ibibio bloc that had enjoyed that position for more than 8 years, since the creation of the state.
“Equity, justice and fairness to the federating units of any state require no pretence, as they constitute the working principles of democracy anywhere in the world.
“The crises witnessed in countries, states or communities all over the world came as a result of denying a section or some sections what they truly deserve within the context of equity, justice and fairness”, the chancellor said.
According to him, the decision to rotate the governorship position of the state among the three ethnic nationalities making up the state was reached in 1998, when the erstwhile governor, Arc. Victor Attah of the Ibibio stock began his campaign for governorship.
He noted that right from creation of the state in 1987, the three ethnic blocs of Ibibio, Annang and Oro had been the recurring decimal in the sharing of elective and appointive political offices in the state. He wondered why everything in Governor Akpabio’s regime was shared on senatorial basis to the exclusion and marginalization of Oro Nation, a fuctional component of the state.
The MODE’s chancellor assured the Oro youth leaders that the gods of the land as well as the God of Heaven had all sanctioned the power shift to Oro Nation, adding that no one of Oro extraction should entertain any doubt on how the dream would materialize.
Also speaking to elaborate on the chancellor’s optimism over the agitation for Oro governorship come 2015, Engr. Effiong Essang, who had worked with the Interpol for decades and is at present a researcher on crime and related security matters, reminded the Oro youths on the concerns of the dead and the living over the Oro governorship in 2015.
He took the participants in the meeting to the memory lane, recalling the event that took place at the customary court’s ground at Anwana Esin by Oron Road in Oron Town, where the late Dr. Michael Okpara, the then premier of Eastern Nigeria, had stood to spite on the people of Oro.
He quoted the late premier, who had come for a political campaign in Oron, under NCNC, to had threatened to relocate the Oro people to elsewhere in the hinterland, so as to make it possible for his kinsmen to take over the coastal flank of Oro Nation, as, according to him, Oro people were in support of Action Group led by Chief Awolowo and coordinated by Chief Anwana Esin, a one time federal minister.
According to Engr. Essang, while Dr. Okpara was making the remark, spiting on the Oro people, a wasp, tiny stringing insect, dropped from it’s nest on the roof of the open courtroom and stung him at the right cheek. The whole face of the eastern premier instantly swollen up, and was immediately rushed back to where he came from.
This, the Engr. Said, foretells what may befall those within and without working against Oro interest come 2015, adding that God is a God of equity, justice and fairness.
Earlier in their presentation, the spokesman of the youth leaders and MODE Coordinator in Udung Uko Local Government Area, Mr. Victor Mkpofor, said the youth leaders representing the five LGAs in Oro Nation had demanded to meet with and have audience with MODE leadership.
The decision, he said, was reached in a joint meeting of Mbo, Urue Offong Oruko, Udung Uko, Oron, and Okobo youths summit held at Udung Uko early in October, 2011, with a resolution adopting the Movement for Democracy and Equity as a platform for the coordination of Oro youths for the 2015 governorship.
According to Mr. Mkpofor, “Oro Youths are impressed over the advocacy ingenuity and efforts of MODE in spear-heading the agitation for Oro governorship in 2015”.
He called on MODE to organize regular meeting of the movement in Oro, as a way of sensitizing the Oro people on the reality of Oro 2015 governorship.
Among the team of youth leaders were MODE coordinators in Udung Uko, Mr. Victor Mkpotor, Urue Offong Oruko, Mr. Esio Joseph, Mr Terry Nkura, Mbo; and Mr. Joseph Okon, Okobo. Others in attendance were Barr. Edet Ating, Mr Manson Akaduh, Comrade Etifit Nkeruwem, Mr Victor Ekere, Mr Major Ebek, Mr. Samuel Ujienjin, among others.

Akwa Ibom State Politics: Supreme Court Poised for a hearing on the Gubernatorial Dispute

Several sources have confirmed that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has set November 14, 2011, as a date to deliberate on the dispute of last April's gubernatorial election. It is the day, according to analysts, that the Court will determine if the dispute should go to trial or not. As a reminder, the disputants in the matter are Godswill Akpabio and Senator Akpan Udoedehe. When contacted at his home in Abuja, the Senator said that he has a strong confidence in the judicial system of Nigeria to be fair and equal, therefore, he will abide by and honor whatever decision the Supreme Court will issue in its ruling. He hopes Godswill Akpabio will be humane enough to do the same.

If the Supreme Court rules that the Appeal Court in Calabar erred by ruling in favor of Godswill Akpabio, then the matter will be returned for trial at the Tribunal in Uyo, where evidence from both sides (PDP and ACN) may be presented before the judges for final outcome as to which of the candidates (Akpabio or Udoedehe) won the election.

On the other hand, if on Monday (November 14, 2011), the Supreme Court sides with the ruling of the Appeal Court in Calabar, Godswill Akpabio will then be confirmed as the Governor of Akwa Ibom State and the case will end there, no further appeal could be made by any of the parties involved.

It is important to note that Tuesday, November 15, 2011, would be the last day for the Supreme Court to hear the case. In other words, if the matter does not come up before the judges by Tuesday, the case would have to be thrown out by the Court as incontestable. Inside sources have confirmed that the reason the case is set for hearing a day before it could have been thrown out by the Supreme Court is because Godswill Akpabio was playing hide-and-seek and difficult-to-reach by making it difficult for the Court messengers to serve him the notice (summon) on the case. Akpabio and his group knew that if the matter is dragged on until November 15, then it would be all over, hence, the cat-and-mouse-game.

ACN lawyers, after several failed attempts to serve the notice of hearing to Akpabio, had to come up with an ingenious way to deliver it. It is reported that one day when Akpabio was finally tracked down to his office, the messengers waited until he emerged from the office. The messengers finally threw the envelope in front of Akpabio. According to some witnesses, when Akpabio saw the envelopes dropped in front of him, he panicked because he thought it was a bomb-parcel; one of the messengers was almost shot. Witnesses said after Akpabio finally realized that he has been served the court notice for response to ACN’s petition, he swore never to respond to it. What he did not know at the time was that the messengers had arranged and video-taped the entire incident, which they presented to the Court, as proof that he had been served the notice. According to sources, Akpabio's lawyers advised him that a response to the case must be filed immediately; otherwise the matter would automatically be ruled in favor of ACN and Senator Akpanudoedehe.

Knowledgeable sources said the Supreme Court could have refused to listen to the matter, if it wanted to. But the decision by the Court to listen to the case is a testimony to the truth that Nigeria is too big a country for a common criminal like Godswill Akpabio to manipulate and hold it to ransom by thinking that he could use the money stolen from the people's treasury to pay-off and corrupt those who swore under oath to uphold truth and justice.

At this juncture, many people could care less on which side of the pendulum the decision of the Court will swing to in favor. What matters is that at least the people will be given the opportunity to state their own side of the story as to whether the election conducted on April 26, 2011, was fair or not fair; this was what the people seek at the Tribunal at Uyo, but was denied; this was what the people seek at the Appeal Court in Calabar, but was denied. Let's thank God for persuading the Supreme Court of Nigeria to hear the voices of the masses. November 14 is the day; let's pray that it will be the day of joy for 5million Akwa Ibom people, who have religiously and devotedly been praying for it to come.

Written by

Thompson Essien (503-661-6368)

The Voice of the Poor Masses

Defender of the Oppressed

Social Critic

A native of Ibibio nation of Ubium Republic extraction, now living in the safe and beautiful city of Portland, Oregon, where no AKPF, ADUMA, ADV, and Akwa Ibom State politicians can reach.