Ekid People's Union - EPU

The Agitation for Obolo State by Ibibio Treacherous Kinsmen and Samuel Udonsak’s Honest Report

By Uwem Akpan

On Friday, the 24th of July 2026, at the inauguration of the International President of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio, Mkpisong (Dr.) Samuel Udonsak in his goodwill message once again courageously reminded the Akwa Ibom people of the implications that await the present and future generations if Oron, Ibeno and Obolo (who now claim to be Ijaw) were to succeed in their ‘‘diabolical’’ attempt to create an Obolo State out of the present-day Akwa Ibom State.

Mkpisong (Dr.) Samuel Udonsak, is a well known Ibibio son. He is the Emissary of Oku Ibom Ibibio and the Supreme Council of Ibibio Traditional Rulers (Ifim Ibom Ibibio), the spokes person of the Ibibio race and the President-General of Eket People’s Union.

Indeed, what he said at the occasion is not new. Rather it is part of ‘‘Ifim Ibom Ibibio Memorandum of Inputs on the Proposed Alteration of the Provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended)’’, presented to the National Assembly and the subsequent National Assembly Panels on the Creation of States in Nigeria, which Mkpisong (Dr.) Udonsak has been eloquently articulating on behalf of the Ibibio race.

The threat posed by the attempt to partition Ibibio land and strip the people of their littoral status, thereby making them economically sterile and politically irrelevant formed part of the Presidential address presented by Mkpisong (Dr.) Udonsak during the National Congress of Ekid People’s Union, with the theme ‘‘Celebrating Our Heritage: Shaping Our Future’’, which took place on the 24th of December 2025, at Eket City Hall, Ukwa Road, Eket.

Attention should be drawn to the obvious fact that the Oku Ibom Ibibio, His Eminence Ntenyin Solomon Etuk, the Ntisong of Akwa Esop Ibibio, Ntisong Pius Okon and uncountable Ibibio leaders, were physically present at the inauguration ceremony of the International President of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio, where Mkpisong (Dr.) Udonsak made the bold and unapologetic statement, thus, an indication that he was speaking for the entire Ibibio race.

It should be noted that during the colonial period, Oron was administered as part of Eket Division with Eket as the headquarters. In 1971, Oron became a Division, through blackmail, it now consists four Local Government Areas (unmerited), in addition, they have partitioned Okobo and made it as part of the so-called ‘‘Oron nation’’.

Geographically, Oron does not share a common boundary with Ibeno. It is bounded by Eket in Ibibio land. Ibeno (recent settlers in Ibibio land), consists of only seven villages as follows: Ubenekang, Mkpanak and Iwochang (settlements in Eket), and Okoroutip, Ntafre, Atabrikang, Opolom (settlements in Oniong Clan of present-day Onna Local Government Area).

Ibeno does not share a common boundary with Eastern Obolo (another group of settlers in Ibibio land). The geographical space between Ibeno settlements and Eastern Obolo is the natural enclave of Oniong Clan in Onna Local Government Area, Ikpa Ibom Clan in Mkpat Enin Local Government Area and Ukpum Ete Clan in Ikot Abasi Local Government Area.

Based on the fact that contiguity, which is one of the major factors that shape the demand for the creation of states in Nigeria is not on their side, Oron and her-co travellers, though aware of the inadequacy of geography have resorted to blackmail and falsehood.

Oron, Ibeno and Obolo now claim to be Ijaw and are being actively supported by Ijaw elite and thugs to partition Ibibio land. This act of treachery especially by the Oron people is not new. In the 1980s, during the struggle for the creation of the Mainland State from the Old Cross River State (now Akwa Ibom State), the Oron people claimed that they were Efik and thus, strongly advocated for the creation of a New Cross River State with headquarters at Ikom. When such political endeavour did not work out, based the challenge of geography among other factors, they immediately revised their narrative and claim to be Ijaw. The truth must be told that there is no Ijaw settlement in Ibibio land. There may be some Ijaw residents in Ibibio land just like there are Ibibio residents in Ijaw land.

The bitter truth has been told by Mkpisong (Dr.) Udonsak, Oron has not littoral status. The Atlantic littoral is Southern Ibibio land.

The Oron people however have the right to ‘‘construct’’ and ‘‘reconstruct’’ their identity. They have the right to agitate for their own state, associate with any group and continue to state, but such a state must be located on their own land. This is Mkpisong (Dr.) Udonsak’s position, which is the position of the entire Ibibio people. Noise does not alter geography nor threats re-write history. No even an inch of Ibibio land will be annexed for this selfish enterprise.

Uwem Jonah Akpan
Consultant-Historian
Uyo, Akwa Ibom State
Nigeria

1st August, 2026.

𝗨𝗞𝗣𝗨𝗠 𝗘𝗧𝗘 𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗔𝗦𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗥𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗢𝗧𝗔𝗟 𝗦𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗗𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗘𝗣𝗨 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗟.

By Assam Abia.

The Ukpum Ete Unity Association of Ikot Abasi Local Government Area has declared its unwavering solidarity with the President General of the Ekid People's Union (EPU), Dr. Samuel Udonsak, praising his courage, boldness and commitment to speaking what it described as the truth on matters affecting the Ibibio nation.

In a solidarity message dated July 30, 2026, and signed by its President, Mr. Eno Ebenezer Etukakpan, and Secretary General, Hon. Emmanuel Ekwere Akpan, the association commended Dr. Udonsak for his fearless disposition in defending the Ibibio heritage and identity.

The group described his address at the installation ceremony of the 12th President of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio, held on July 24 at Sir Udo Udoma House in Uyo, as a courageous and well-articulated presentation that reflected the resilience of a true Ibibio son.

According to the association, Dr. Udonsak's forthrightness on issues concerning the Ibibio patrimony deserves commendation and encouragement rather than criticism.

The association reaffirmed its support for the position that no part of Ibibio land should be ceded to any proposed State, stressing that while proponents of Obolo State are free to pursue their constitutional aspiration, such a quest should not involve the ceding of any portion of Ibibio territory.

It further urged the EPU President General to remain resolute despite criticisms and verbal attacks from opposing groups, assuring him that the association would continue to stand by him and defend his integrity.

The message concluded with prayers for God's protection upon Dr. Udonsak and his family, while reaffirming the association's commitment to supporting efforts aimed at preserving and promoting the Ibibio heritage and coastal identity.

AKWA IBOM STATE FACTS FOR THE RECORDS
AND THE ORO MALADY

It has become pertinent for some facts to be noted especially now that "Oro" people of Akwa Ibom State are boldly out with twisted claims and obnoxious propaganda.

1. The attached two maps here are the detachment of newly birthed Akwa Ibom State from Cross River State map of 1987 depicting as we were with 10 LGAs, and the first ever map produced by Akwa Ibom state government in accordance to precibes of extant Nigerian laws in 2023. It was unfortunate that a certain fake map was smuggled into the state mechanism by some unscrupulous elements in about year 2000 and the government of the day then was deceived that it was inherited from the military yet without any proof of establishment instrument. Akwa Ibom State government must probe the advent of the fake map with its many attendant negative effects on the state.

2. The successive administrations of state government had shown interest to develop the epoch Deep Seaport in the state but frustrated by Oro tribal bigots with spurious claim and propaganda that it must be sited at Ibaka, even against reports and recommendations of international experts and FG technical team in 2013 which preferred the Seaside location of Okposo in Esit Eket LGA basing their claims principally on the fact that a Deep Seaport isn't suitable in a river but a shoreline area but the greedy enemies of the state ignored the fact and insist it should be in a river near them, not even minding the fact that the Cross River Estuary body of water which they depend on has been granted rights to Cross River State.

3. Then comes the lack of littoral status by the entire Oro nation including Mbo LGA. It's incontrovertible that it is too late for Oro people to create a littoral status for Mbo as they cannot change or redefine the international maritime laws of the sea. Thank God the FG owned Maritime University is located among them for ease of knowledge. In fact, I wish I could help Oro nation achieve such dream.

4. Sad to note that Oro elders are misleading their youths with falsehood and some of them seem to lack sense gratitude. It could be recalled that late Gen. U. J. Esuene in his show of Ekid man's liberal mindset appointed an Oro man Barr Nkereuwem first Attorney General of South Eastern State, rather than show loyalty and forthrightness, on arrival of Mobil Producing, he having failed in his bid to persuade and cajole Esuene to site QIT in Oro land against geography instead of the preferred Eket, he went and incited the terminal to be moved to Bonny in Rivers State. If not for God's grace and intervention, Gen. Gowon then head of state would have signed it for Bonny. On discovery of Ekereuwem's complicity, Esuene simply asked him to resign with benefits paid instead of sack and prosecution. Some Oro leaders recently twisted the story and misled Senate President Akpabio for favours.

5. In this state, the incumbent Deputy Governor deliberately ignored the state official map which is a duly enacted law and embarrassed the state by presenting a fake map model as souvenir and she would have been impeached but for the governor intervened to save her ass.

6. Also, when BUA was granted massive land space to site their refinery in part of Stubb's Creek Forest, the then SSG being an Oro son mischievously cajoled the Governor and took BUA reps to sign MoU with Ibeno instead of Ekid the bona fide owners, the matter is still in court till date.

7. It is baffling that Oro leaders with all the collection of their endowed intellectuals would now want to twist facts to challenge Ekid of southern Ibibio ownership of Okposo. Common sense now wonders if Okposo was ever part of Mbo or Oro land, why then are Oro challenging the relocation of the Deep Seaport from Ibaka to Okposo and claiming it's biased against Oro interest notwithstanding the fact the industrial city component of the deep seaport project is located in Mbo.

Needless mentioning more but it is imperative at this juncture for the state as led by the Governor, traditional hierarchy as led by Oku Ibom, political leaders, elders and stakeholders across the state to rise and treat these unprecedented anomaly in the state for common good and posterity.
May God continue to have mercy on Akwa Ibom State.

Sir Jack Etteh,
Mkpisong Ekid,
Eket. 30/7/2026.

"Based on the Privy Council and Down-Below Judgement'- starting from the mouth of the Qua Iboe River to Child's Point, where Okposo 1&2 are located, belongs to the Ekid people of Southern Ibibio.", and starting from the mouth of Qua Iboe River to the Imo River, the entire Atlantic coastline belongs to Ette people of Ikot Abasi of Southern Ibibio, in perpetuity"

-- Dr Samuel Udonsak

*“EKID IS NOT IBIBIO” — _says Oron Union_*

*ALL IBIBIO MUST BE AWARE: WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE ORON UNION, ORO-OBOLO ALLIANCE:*

_*a measured response to the Oro Union Press Statement on Littoral Status*_

On Saturday, 24 July 2026, Ibibio leadership under the auspices of Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio (MMI) gathered for the inauguration of the 12th Executive Council of MMI.

In his speech, Dr. Samuel Udonsak, the President General of the Ekid Peoples' Union, rightly pronounced that no LGA in Oron Nation is littoral.

Immediately after the proclamation, the Oro people, true to pattern, attacked Dr. Udonsak and the Ekid Nation, insisting that “Ekid is not Ibibio.”

Let us examine that claim.

*The 1983 Anti-Ibibio Politics and the Status of Ekid Ethnicity:*

In 1983, Senator Victor Akan, an Oro man, in alliance with Senate President Joseph Wayas of Ejagham extraction, mobilized all the minority groups in the then Cross River State against the Ibibio. Their target was clear: to deny Dr. Clement Isong, an Ibibio man from ONNA, a second term as governor _simply because he was Ibibio_. They vowed that no Ibibio person would ever receive the ticket of the ruling party, the NPN, and further declared that no Ibibio person would ever become governor of Cross River State again.

Although the Ibibio were the majority in the then Cross River State, the coalition of minorities overwhelmed them. However, not all minority areas joined the anti-Ibibio build-up.

When Governor Clement Isong was blocked from the NPN re-election ticket because of his Ibibio identity, the Ibibio sought another platform. Under the UPN, Brig. Gen. U.J. Esuene, an Ekid man, was adopted as the Ibibio governorship candidate. Chief Don Etiebet from Annang, representing the minorities, emerged as the NPN candidate.

Brig. Gen. Esuene, the Ibibio candidate, won the 1983 election but was denied victory through manipulation by the ruling party.

The Oro people openly mocked the Ibibio ethnic group and celebrated what they called “the everlasting downfall of Ibibio,” boasting that no Ibibio person would ever be governor again. I was then a young civil servant posted to Oron. In the country home of Senator Victor Akan, a grand celebration was held, attended by the prominent figures of Oron Nation, to celebrate the “downfall” of Ibibio. Ibibio residents in Oro areas were harassed. I was physically assaulted by an Oro mob at my place of assignment. My only offense was being a “defeated Ibibio.”

Many Ibibio students at Methodist Boys High School, Oron, were driven home by Oro mobs. One Ibibio student, Effanga, was killed at Eyobasi. His only offense was that he was a “defeated Ibibio.”

The entire Ibibioland was inflamed and ready for confrontation. But General Esuene called for restraint and urged the people to leave the injustice to God. That was when he made his enduring statement: “Future will tell.”

That future was rather too close. Etiebet was sworn in on 1 October 1983. Three months later, on 31 December 1983, that government was overthrown. It was then that Governor Etiebet made his famous statement: “Mkpo Iso Mmi.”

Military rule followed, and in the process Akwa Ibom State was created, with Oro Nation now sharing a state with the Ibibio.

The wise saying goes: always remember that there is a tomorrow. Yet today, instead of Oro leaders playing cool so as not to provoke old wounds for the mutual benefit of Akwa Ibom State, as the Annang have done, they choose to sustain the 1983 war effort, often without telling their youths the truth. Who suffers?

*THE QUESTION FOR ORO IS:*
Since you claim Ekid is not Ibibio, against whom were you fighting in the 1983 governorship election when you opposed an Ibibio candidate? Was he not an Ekid man? At what point then did you suddenly realize that Ekid is not Ibibio?

*THE ORO STRATEGY THAT MUST NOT BE IGNORED*

In the Oron Union press statement of 28 July 2026 on the littoral status of Oron Nation, it is notable that the Union deliberately avoided referring to Ibibio as one indivisible people. Instead, it listed them as Ekid, Ibibio, Itu Mbon Uso, and Nkari. What the Oro are attempting is to fragment the Ibibio, as though Ekid, Nkari, and Itu Mbon Uso — maliciously rendered as “Itu Mbuzor” — are not Ibibio.

It is clear that Oro leaders are still prosecuting the 1983 war against the Ibibio. Only the strategy has changed. In 1983 they mobilized minorities against the Ibibio majority and denied Dr. Isong a second term on ethnic grounds. Today they seek to balkanize Ibibio Nation. The objective remains the same: to destroy Ibibio as a united political and social force.

At the same time, they are consolidating the various Oro communities — not all of common ancestry — and building an external alliance with Ibeno and Obolo under the contrivance called “Oro-Obolo.” Truthfully, Oro-Obolo is a political construct designed as an instrument of war against the Ibibio.

The strategy is simple: while they consolidate all anti-Ibibio groups into one front, they seek to fragment the Ibibio in order to defeat them piecemeal. Whenever an Oro person says “Ekid is not Ibibio,” this is the intent behind it.

We have the intelligence. They are constantly around Senate President Godswill Akpabio, attempting to persuade him to form an Annang-Oro-Obolo alliance against the Ibibio. The Annang, however, have shown greater wisdom.

*COASTAL POLITICS*

A state map was lawfully enacted in 2023. Oro leaders and traditional rulers were invited to the public hearing. At that time, they raised no objections to the mapping exercise. It was only later, when they realized that the map had accorded territorial justice to Ibibioland, that Oro elements began to attack the map — even though it neither removed nor added a single inch of Oro territory.

Falsehoods are now being spread to their population that the Ibibio drew the map to seize Oro land. All of this is part of a war strategy.

It is clear that the renewed Ibibio unity and renaissance, and the return of the Ekid branch of Ibibio to the fold, is a serious concern to the Oro. The disintegration of Ibibio Nation benefited them.

*RECOMMENDATION*

In the past, when Ekid people complained about a grand conspiracy along the Atlantic coastline, some of us dismissed it as a routine boundary dispute between neighbors. It is not. It is war against Ibibioland.

There is indeed a cold war against the Ibibio. The only effective counter is vigilance and the consciousness that the Ibibio are at war — a very dangerous war that fires no bullets, but seeks to steal generations.

_Elder S.T.O. Eshiet_
_Uruan, 29.7.26_

DEFINING LITTORAL COMMUNITY

By Barrister Akpadia Etukakpan


*A littoral community* includes any human settlement or biological ecosystem bounded to rivers, lakes, and estuaries, extending up to several kilometers inland. It is not restricted to the open ocean coast.

The term "littoral" technically means "relating to a shoreline". In socio-political, geographic, and economic contexts—such as local infrastructure planning or oil and gas zoning—governments and agencies adopt a broad definition.

This definition includes communities located along tidal rivers, estuaries, and wetlands that are directly influenced by marine tides, estuarine ecosystems, or coastal economic activities.

*But Under Nigerian jurisprudence* , *a* *littoral community* is strictly defined as a settlement whose territory abuts, is contiguous to, or directly borders the open sea (the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Guinea).

*Under the standard legal framework established by the Supreme Court of Nigeria and the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021,* mere proximity to inland rivers, creeks, or estuaries does not confer littoral status.

1. The Contiguity Requirement (Supreme Court Precedent) In landmark resource-control cases—such as A-G Federation v. A-G Abia State & Ors and A-G Cross River State v. A-G Akwa Ibom State—the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that a territory must have a direct coastline touching the sea to be considered littoral. Under Nigerian law, access to water via inland rivers, creeks, or estuaries is classified as riparian, not littoral. If estuaries qualified as littoral boundaries, many inland riverine communities would legally become coastal entities, which the apex court has rejected.

2. *Statutory Distance Limits (The PIA 2021 Framework)* For the purpose of oil and gas Host Communities Development Trusts (HCDT), the definition is strictly restricted by distance. According to the National Boundary Commission (NBC) Regulations, a littoral host community is defined as a community next to a deep-water area of operation located along the Gulf of Guinea of the Nigerian shoreline up to about 500 meters inland.3. Legal Delineation Authority Under a landmark Federal High Court ruling by Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa, the National Boundary Commission (NBC) holds sole statutory authority to delineate these coastal boundaries. The Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) and oil companies ("settlors") must strictly adhere to the gazetted 500-meter coastal baseline buffer. A community must be directly on the oceanic coastline and within 500 meters inland to claim littoral status.
3.
3. *Okay, let's look at the Cross River vs. Akwa Ibom boundary jurisprudence regarding offshore oil wells.*

In Nigerian jurisprudence, the legal definition of litoral states under the landmark Supreme Court precedent of *A.G. Cross River State v. A.G. Federation & Anor (2012),* access to rivers, creeks, or estuaries does not confer littoral status; a territory must physically abut the open ocean coastline.
*The Jurisprudential Evolution: 2002 to 2012 The Geopolitical Catalyst (2002):* Following the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in the Bakassi Peninsula dispute, Nigeria ceded the Bakassi territory to Cameroon. Before this, Cross River State enjoyed a direct maritime boundary with ocean frontage and rightfully received the 13% derivation revenue from 76 offshore oil wells.The "Landlocked" Declaration (2012): When the federal government stopped paying derivation revenue to Cross River State, Cross River sued Akwa Ibom and the Federation, claiming that its access through the Cross River Estuary preserved its coastal, littoral status.

The Supreme Court dismissed Cross River’s suit. Delivering the lead judgment, the apex court held that by losing Bakassi, Cross River State’s direct access to the open sea was extinguished. Justice Adekeye famously affirmed that Cross River had legally become a landlocked state for the purposes of maritime attribution. Consequently, because a non-littoral state cannot possess a maritime boundary or claim offshore oil wells, the 76 disputed wells were legally attributed to Akwa Ibom State.

The Oro Nation, not having a direct boundary with the Atlantic Ocean, then cannot, by any imagination, be considered litoral.

UDONSAK IS RIGHT AND TRUTH MUST BE TOLD - ORO NATION
IS NOT COASTAL; _STRICTO SENSU_

BY PROF. ETIE BEN AKPAN

Dr. Samuel Udonsak, President General of the Apex Ekid Nation Socio Cultural Organization, Ekid People’s Union has come under intense and
unwarranted attacks from some people of Oro Nation over his address at the installation of the 12th International President and executives of the
Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio on Friday 24th July, 2026 at the Mboho Secretariat in Uyo.

As part of his statement during the Address of the Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio Assembly, Dr. Udonsak had stated that the claim by some pople of Oro
Nation that the latter is a coastal or littoral state is a fallacy and totally misleading. On this aspect of non-littoral status of Oro Nation, I am 100%
with Dr. Samuel Udonsak.

Scientific facts must be separated from emotions, ethnic sentiments and politics in this matter. I could have disagreed with Dr. Udonsak if he had
said that Oro Nation is not hydrocarbon bearing but he didn’t say so.

I expect all those who are in disagreement with Dr. Udonsak’s statement that Oro Nation is neither coastal nor littoral to come up with clear and
concrete geographical and scientific facts to prove their claims.

Specifically, one Apt. Robin Etifit Jp is quoted to have stated that both the Colonial and Official Maps of 1943-2026 clearly list Oro Local
Government Areas as coastal with over 6okm of Atlantic Coastline from Oron Local Government Area to Ibaka in Mbo LGA.

The above assertions are completely untrue and dangerously misleading. The mention of Oron Local Government Area and Ibaka in Mbo Local
Government Area by Apt. Etifit as being coastal environments shows that he is not familiar with the geography of the area and the true meaning of the
term because the mentioned locations or territories are associated with the shorelines or banks of Oron River; Cross River and its Estuary as well as the associated tributaries, but are in no way directly connected with the Atlantic Coastline or the Gulf of Guinea.

No Map in this world has shown any Oro Local Government to be coastal or littoral in the true and strict sense of these terminologies. From all
available maps of this part of Nigeria, whether it is
the one produced by Talbot of the then Eket District Region, during the British Colonial Government, which was used in the Privy Council land case of 1916-1918 or the official 2023 Map of Akwa Ibom State, no Oron Local Government Area has occupied even an inch of the Atlantic Coastline; talk less of 60km of it.

The last I checked, the 7 Local Government Areas in Akwa Ibom State that can correctly and rightly be described as coastal or littoral are Esit Eket,
Eket, Ibeno, Onna, Mkpat Enin, Eastern Obolo and Ikot Abasi.

There are many shoreline Local Government Areas which include Mbo, Udung Uko, Oron, Okobo, Uruan, Itu, Oruk Anam etc.

Dr. Udonsak’s insistence that Oro is not a littoral or Coastal Nation should not generate this sort of heat or attract controversy and attack on his
person. He is merely stating a fact and speaking the truth. The latter must be the watch word in Akwa Ibom State especially now that a Pastor is the Governor.

Being littoral or coastal does not mean that only the concernedLocal Government Areas should own all the resources that accrue to this
status. As Akwa Ibom State is also defined by its coastline, the latter should be of benefit to all the constituent parts of the State.

Every part must remain and work together to enjoy the benefits that it brings and no part should attempt to run away with our coastline or transport it to another State. I think, this is Udonsak’s message which should be applauded by all well-meaning Akwa Ibomites.

*RE: OFFICIAL REBUTTAL:*

*THE TRUTH ABOUT ORON LITTORAL STATUS, THE ATLANTIC SHORELINE, AND IBAKA DEEP SEAPORT*

By Apt. Robin Etifit.

_A Response by Barr. Manfred Ekpe_

Apt. Etifit made mention of "Atlantic Shoreline". However, geographically, hydrologically, technically and legally there is nothing like "Atlantic Shoreline". This can only be a proud illiterate's language.

Shoreline is related exclusively to Rivers and internal waterways. In the contrast, Atlantic is an ocean which is referred legally, hydrologically, geographically and technically to as "coastline" or "littoral". Apt. Etifit ought to have gone back to school before trying to "teach" Ibibio people of what littoral is; or at best, he should avoid misleading a section of the Oro public less informed than himself with an academically deficit argument. Generally, the Oro society is a highly educated community but it is sad that quasi-illiterates will keep embarrassing the elitist Oro society because the social media is near free.

I wish to respond to Apt Etifit in his other claims as follows:

1. Apt. Etifit claims that the 1913 — 2026 official maps clearly shows Oron Nation as littoral. But he has failed to cite such map for independent verification. This is because such maps don't exist.

THE FACT: one of the earliest maps of Oro Nation is the Official Map of Eket District dated 1913 and enacted by Dr. Percy A. Talbot, the colonial district officer for Eket during the time Oro was under Eket Administration. In this map, Oro Nation which had today been divided into Oron, Okobo, Udung Uko, Mbo and Urue Offong Oruko LGAs, have no access to the Atlantic coastline.

In the same map, Ekid territory presently divided into Eket and Esit Eket LGAs is shown occupying the entire Atlantic coastline east of Qua Iboe River. In contrast, Ibeno settlement was shown as comprising 5 refugee settlements on the either sides of Qua Iboe River on the land granted to them by Ibibio ancestors.

In the 1916 lawsuit between Mkpanak Ibeno and Ekid, this map was tendered and guided the British presiding judge, Mr. Justice A.F.C. Weber in his decision, and who declared that "the evidence shows that Eket the Southern Ibibios are in exclusive possession of the land in dispute". The court went ahead to declare that from the mouth of Qua Iboe River to Child's Point is the land of the southern Ibibios of Eket. Today, Child's Point is where Okposo II village is located. The interesting thing is that Oro ancestors testified in that case as witnesses. So did their ancestors not know at the time that they owned the land but not Ibibio?

Unlike the Oro sweeping claims basing on non-existent maps, we declare that the said 1913 map can be obtained from the British colonial archives at Kew, Richmond in London.

Additionally, there is nothing like the 2026 map of Akwa Ibom as claimed by Etifit. Illiteracy is a disease.

*2. ORO HAS 60 KMs of ATLANTIC COASTLINE*

Apt. Etifit 's weird claim here is rather that of ignorance than deliberate falsehood. This is because against his claim, Ibaka is not on the Atlantic coastline but along the estaury of the Cross River. Meanwhile, from the mouth of Cross River (where that river meets with the Atlantic Ocean) to Ibaka Bay is less than one Kilometer thus, geographically, making Ibaka Bay part of the Cross River Estaury. Where then did Apt. Etifit manufacture 60 KMs from assuming "river shoreline" was the same thing as "littoral coastline?"

*3. UNCLOS 1983 recognizes Oro as Littoral:*
This claim is laughable and crowns Etifit with a crown of shame. Such claim is only an attempt by a half educated man to sound elitist. To begin with, what is UNCLOS 1982? It is simply an international law statute enacted in 1982, which full meaning is *United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982* (abbreviated as UNCLOS 1982). The UNCLOS 1982 does not recognize Oro or any other community in the world as littoral community, otherwise we call on Etifit to refer the world to the provision of UNCLOS 1982 that lists Oro as littoral. The UNCLOS 1982 only sets out international maritime law as governing laws of nations.

For information, it was under the UNCLOS 1982 that the World Court in 2001 declared that Bakassi Peninsula is Cameroon territory. By the effect of the World Court judgement, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held in 2012 that Cross River State is no more a littoral State. Where Cross River State is not littoral, how can Oro Nation that shares there entire shoreline boundary with Cross River State be littoral? Common sense is not common indeed!

4. *Apt. Etifit's claim on "National Boundary Commission Report 1976*: This claim is not just ignorance and illiteracy, but a fraud and mischief. For the records, the National Boundary Commission (NBC) did not exist as at 1976. The NBC was created in 2004 by an Act of the National Assembly. So the 1976 National Boundary Commission Report does not exist. It's only one of those fake stories created by the likes of Robin Etifit who, for lack of academic and social title chose to add "Apostle" and "First African Pope", to himself— title that only makes sense in evening palmy joint gathering.

5. *NIMASA Report Recognizing Ibaka As Deep Natural Harbour:*
What has a riverine community being recognized as a natural harbour got to do with littoral status of a community?

6. *On Daring Ibibio for Ethnic War:*

No responsible Oro leader and people would do this. Certainly, whether armed warfare or democratic power warfare, 500,000 people cannot dare 6.6 Million people.

*RECOMMENDATION TO THE ORO LEADERSHIP:*

The statement of Apt. Etifit, is to say the least, very embarrassing to the Oro Nation and people. The Oro leadership should regulate those who purport to write for the community.