By Solomon OKPO
Tensions surrounding the controversial proposal to rename Eket Federal Constituency to Ekid came to a head on April 4, 2025, during a high-stakes stakeholders’ meeting convened by Rt. Hon. Opolopm Ette, Member representing Eket Federal Constituency. The meeting, held at the residence of elder statesman Rt. Hon. Nduese Essien, was aimed at clarifying issues but ended up exposing deeper cracks and lapses in consultation.
The root of the controversy dates back to a letter authored by Chief Assam Assam SAN on April 24, 2024, which proposed the name change on grounds that “Eket” is a colonial distortion of the indigenous “Ekid.” However, legal experts and political stakeholders argue that the letter failed to follow the constitutional and legislative procedures required for such a significant change.
“There was no widespread consultation, no resolutions from local authorities, and no community consensus,” one attendee stated, describing the process as “procedurally flawed.”
Stakeholders expressed shock that the bill had reached the second reading at the National Assembly without their awareness. The situation was worsened by Hon. Ette’s health-related absence during the critical period, and the failure of aides assigned to notify other lawmakers—an omission many described as negligent.
Though Hon. Ette managed to have the bill stood down upon his return, legal experts emphasized that this move does not kill the bill. Without a formal withdrawal submitted to the Clerk of the National Assembly and ratified by plenary, the proposal remains active.
The meeting also sparked strong emotional responses, especially from proponents of the name change. Critics decried the rise of social media campaigns and name-calling that have derailed reasoned debate.
Political analyst Elder Etukudo Etukudo Essien, reflecting on the meeting, warned that the issue cannot be resolved by sentiment or social media theatrics. “This is a constitutional matter, not a cultural argument. It requires process, not propaganda,” he said.
As the dust settles, all eyes are on the next steps—particularly whether a formal withdrawal letter will be submitted before the next stakeholder engagement. Without it, the bill remains in limbo, and the confusion continues.
Stakeholders insist that governance must return to the path of transparency, legality, and inclusion, with many calling for a redefinition of engagement between representatives and their constituents.
