Well, i think we lost the opportunity to act. Before the court judgement, that when we should have articulated a position. Dont you think?
--Edem

The Handover is proper as we were not the original owners of the land from time. Has any one ever thought of why it didn't show in the map before now?
--The Boss

From which time would that be?, I was wondering maybe no one actually laid claim to the place before the discovery of oil there. Anyway, there are people who know that paceas their homelane. What about such people?
--Edem

I think history should be traced back

Rejoinder to the Guardian’s editorial of April 23, 2008 titled the Obongship dispute in Calabar
http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/editorial_opinion/article01//indexn2_html?pdate=230408&ptitle=The Obongship dispute in Calabar

Permit me to shed light on the dispute surrounding the stool of the Obong of Calabar.
Historically, with the introduction of Calabar into the international economy in the early part of the 18th century, the titular leadership of the Efik kingdom became a regular bone of contention amongst the ruling houses due to the economic and political power wielded by the occupant. In 1908 exactly hundred years ago, an agreement came into force between the British and the Efik Kings abrogating the title of King and replacing it with the title - Obong of Calabar, to be borne only by the titular head of Calabar. Over the years even though this position has lost most of its gloss, coupled with the advent of the Nigerian political space, the title has been abused and sometimes split over unnecessary tussles between different contending contestants.
Your write up stated correctly that an Obong can only be selected by the Etuboms amongst their midst. It also stated correctly that there was a 1970 accord that rotated this stool between two spheres of influence, with the last Obong coming from the Atakpa area. You then went on a journey of excursion by stating inter alia: “in the morning of Sunday, April 6, an Obong of Calabar was capped at the Efe Asabo kingship shrine, in the person of Edidem Bassey Ekpo Bassey II.” There is a difference between selection within the Obong’s Council, which you have accepted, and “capped” which has no bearing in Efik culture. There has been a lot of propaganda and wool pooling over this incident of Mr. Bassey reportedly being spry enough to outrun and outwit all other contestants and thus – “Bassey II has effectively exploited the unbending rule of tradition to present his opponents with a fait accompli.” Who told the Guardian that being “capped”, is the “unbending rule of tradition”? The truth of the matter and as Mr. Bassey himself has severally noted, the Efik Kingdom is made up of twelve principalities. According to Efik tradition, an Obong cannot be crowned while one is still alive. If and when a sitting Obong departs, the conclave of Etuboms meet and select one Etubom amongst themselves to become the Obong on the basis of either consensus or majority vote. According to the Efik “unbending” rule of traditional, each of the twelve principalities is responsible for a traditional rite, which MUST be carried out before one could be proclaimed an Obong. In other words, one principality cannot arrogate to itself the power of making the Obong just because it has custody of one paraphernalia of an Obong installation process.
Mr. Bassey has only exploited the fact that his principality’s part of the procedure or ritual, which only involves the capping, could be carried out by a member of his Cobham Town Traditional Combined Council. The questions to ask Mr. Bassey are, could an Obong be made without the other eleven principalities carrying out their part of the rituals? If he is insisting on being “capped” as the only grundnorm for an Efik Obong to be made as per the Guardian Newspaper’s understanding of the situation, “and by tradition, no new Obong may be crowned while one is alive.” Did Mr. Bassey at any time within living memory announce the deposition of the present Obong? The truth of the matter is that the wearing of the traditional cap does not confer an Obongship. Prince Eniang Archibong in the 1960s wore it in public even when his father was alive and heavens did not fall. Does Mr. Bassey have a senior uncle who is an Etubom who would rightly serve as the capping chief priest on the basis of age? Did this uncle of his crown or cap him?
We have highlighted Mr. Bassey, because the Nigerian world of journalism seems to have developed a soft spot for one of theirs. But questions mus

It’s astonishing to read from certain individuals that Bakassi Peninsular doesn’t belong to us. Those with such opinion should consult history, written by the unbiased historians.

Concerning the payment of compensation by the Federal government to our state, that isn’t too late; We can still ask for it, because the Peninsular wasn’t ceded to Cameroon for nothing, Nigeria was indirectly paid for it.

The question that could be asked is how and when the Federal government was being paid. The answer is quite simple. First, as the ceded area belongs to Cameroon now, the oil in the area will unquestionable be exploited by Petrofina-Elf, which is a French - Belgian company. It could be remembered that France has all along been profoundly interested with the ceded Peninsular.

Second, the Nigerian 30 billion US Dollar Paris Club debt was not only smoothly, but also very swiftly negotiated, and more than half was over-written after the Nigeria Federal government has started handing over the land in question to the French ex-colony. Since when has the France started being generous to an English-speaking African country?

If the Federal government had opposed the International Court of Justice judgement, or refused to handover the disputed area to Cameroon, it would have been absolutely impossible for the Paris Club deal to be through.

We need to mobilise ourselves and ask the Federal government to compensate our state for the lost major source of revenue.

--Edet B. Effiom
<mailto:[email protected]>