By Solomon OKPO
The growing agitation for the creation of Obolo State has stirred significant concerns across Akwa Ibom, with critics warning that the proposal poses deep legal, economic, and socio-political dangers. In a strongly worded position paper, Etukudo Etukudo Essien, a respected voice from the region, argued that the creation of the proposed state is not only ill-conceived but also a strategic attempt to undermine the territorial integrity and economic future of Akwa Ibom State.
According to Essien, the move is nothing more than a “ploy to deprive Akwa Ibom of its offshore oil wealth,” as the reconfiguration of boundaries under the Obolo proposal would transfer key maritime oil assets, historically belonging to Akwa Ibom, into the new entity. “This is a calculated scheme to redraw maritime boundaries and shortchange the state of its rightful oil-derived revenue,” he stated.
The proposed state, if created, would also strip several Local Government Areas, namely Mkpat Enin, Onna, Eket, and Esit-Eket, of their shoreline, severing their economic lifeline from key sectors such as fisheries, ports, maritime trade, and tourism. The loss, he added, would be both territorial and developmental.
Of particular concern is the illegal encroachment on Stubb’s Creek, a vital ecological and economic zone historically owned by Eket and Esit-Eket LGAs.
Essien cited a 1916 Privy Council Judgement affirming their ownership, which the Obolo proposal threatens to override. “To disregard such a long-standing legal precedent is to invite legal chaos and injustice,” he noted.
In what appears to be a broader strategic maneuver, the proposal could leave Akwa Ibom landlocked, an outcome Essien described as “a deliberate effort to marginalize and economically asphyxiate the state.”
Other objections raised include the blatant violation of existing legal boundaries, the risk of escalating boundary disputes and insecurity, and the distortion of the region’s history and cultural inheritance.
The proposed state, according to Essien, also fails the test of geographical logic and contiguity. “Without Mkpat Enin, Onna, Eket, and Esit-Eket, the state would be a fragmented entity with no territorial cohesion,” he said.
Critically, the lack of consultation with affected stakeholders and absence of a local referendum have further delegitimized the process. Essien condemned the promoters of the state as “driven by personal ambition and ethnic empire-building rather than collective good or national interest.”
He concluded by calling on the Federal Government, the National Assembly, and all relevant authorities to reject the proposal in its entirety. “The creation of Obolo State, as currently conceived, is unjust, divisive, and strategically harmful to the unity of Nigeria,” he warned.
As debates continue, the proposal is rapidly evolving into a flashpoint for legal contestation, regional activism, and constitutional scrutiny, raising urgent questions about equity, federalism, and the future of state creation in Nigeria.
