The True Story Of The 1917 Eviction And The 1927/1932 Supreme Court Vindications
In 1911, Aberiba exploited the literacy of their brothers in Igbo court clerks from Bende serving in the fledgling Ediba Native Court to orchestrate a fraudulent suit based on a fabricated survey sketch.
Archival records from the National Archives reveal the true facts of Case No. 2/1917: the Ediba Native Court had merely ordered a single Ebom man, Okpata Amoramo, to vacate a disputed farm plot. However, corrupt court officials maliciously executed the order against the entire Ebom community, using a colonial police patrol in 1917 to drive Ebom from their ancient village into the outer farmlands.
Ebom pursued legal redress. In Suit No. 1/1927, the Supreme Court (presided over by Carey, J.) delivered judgment on 16th March 1932, setting aside the 1917 eviction as an act of absolute illegality executed without jurisdiction. Delivering judgment, Justice Carey observed:
“…the plaintiff [Ebom] and the defendant [Aberiba] and their respective people have continued to live in their respective parts of the one village of Ebom until the plaintiffs in purported pursuance of the Native Council judgment in 1917 were driven out of their part of the village four months after the judgment… [Aberiba] states that his initial reason for desiring to remove the plaintiff and his people was induced by fear of being ousted from his part of the village… A very inadequate reason in my opinion from the point of justice and equity.”
The Supreme Court ordered that Ebom must immediately return, build upon, and take peaceful possession of their homeland.
RIGOROUS ANALYSIS OF THE 1964 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT (FSC.323/62)
In modern campaigns, Ebijakara repeatedly brandishes the 1964 Supreme Court Judgment delivered in Suit No. FSC.323/62 (Chief Edward Iwara v. Joseph A. Iriem) on Friday, 24th April 1964 by a bench comprising Sir Adetokunbo Ademola (CJN), Sir Lionel Brett (JSC), and John Idowu Conrad Taylor (JSC), falsely alleging that it granted them unencumbered title to wipe out Ebom’s land rights.
A comprehensive reading of the Certified True Copy of the judgment reveals the following fundamental truths:
Judicial Confirmation of Customary Title to Etumapai in Ebom: The Supreme Court explicitly affirmed the High Court’s ruling (per Palmer, J.) which held that the territory known as Etumapai belongs to Ebom. The Supreme Court ruled:
“…Ebom established their claim to Etumapai as part of the land which was granted to them in the remote past, taken away from them after the judgement of 1917, and restored by the judgement in the 1927 case.” Etumapai remains ancestral Ebom land by unassailable apex court authority.
Procedural Nature of the 1934 Motion: The Court observed that in Ebom’s 1934 motion, Ebom’s supporting affidavit focused on recovering residential village land after being compressed by colonial boundaries: “These pillars confined us to an area which is much smaller than the area first occupied by us before we were obliged to leave the village.
Under the present circumstances we have no room within which to make our latrine pits… and it is customary for the inhabitants of a village to have ground to make their usual small market gardens to grow medicinal herbs, beans and shrubs for cooking purposes…” Because Ebom’s earlier pleadings were strictly formulated around residential restoration (“to build and live”), the Supreme Court restricted declaratory title to Etumapai, declining to grant broader agricultural declarations solely on grounds of procedural pleadings.
Ebom’s Total Victory on the South-Western Boundary (Falk Pillar No. 1): Ebijakara’s propagandists willfully suppress the final orders on page 6 of the 1964 judgment. Administrative Officer Falk had erected boundary pillars in 1913. Pillar No. 1 had been broken, with its top portion displaced. Aberiba fraudulently claimed a line running from the detached top piece to the Cross River (the red line). Ebom claimed a line running from the original anchored stump to the river (the green line). The Supreme Court upheld Ebom, ruling:
“We regard it as probable that the stump remains in its original position, so that the boundary claimed by Ebom is the correct one, and the judgement of the High Court will be varied accordingly.”
Appellate Nature and Absence of Physical Demarcation: The 1964 judgment was an appellate review of lower court records; it never dispatched administrative surveyors to the field to peg coordinates. For decades, successive regional and state administrations failed to beacon any boundary on the ground. As the 2006 Judicial Commission noted, this failure left the territory in administrative limbo, an ambiguity Ebijakara exploited to stage agricultural encroachments and provoke endless friction.
MODERN PROVOCATIONS AND PRE-MEDITATED AGGRESSION (1967–2005)
Far from being victims, Aberiba/Ebijakara engaged in a century-long series of calculated provocations and aggressive machinations:
●The Civil War Ingratitude and Secret Name Change: During the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), federal troops advancing through Bahumono sought to eliminate Aberiba residents because their name directly identified them as Biafran Ibos from Bende (in the present day Abia State of the South Eastern geopolitical region). Ebom leaders, led by Ovai Bassey Ndem, intervened at great risk and sheltered them from slaughter. Yet, elements of Aberiba subsequently betrayed Ebom leaders to soldiers at Unwana, leading to the murder of our chiefs and youths. Following the war, Aberiba hurriedly deposed to sworn affidavits in the 1970s changing their community’s name to “Ebijakara” (an inversion of Ebi Nkanu, after their ancestral leader Nkanu Ebi Esu) to conceal their Igbo origin and fabricate an indigenous Bahumono identity.
●The Rehu Ina Abasi Communal Trust Land: In the 1970s, Ebom co-donated the Rehu Ina Abasi parcel (stretching towards Lower Igonigoni) for public development, on which the Council Health Centre and Assemblies of God Church were built. Ebijakara subsequently attempted to unilaterally usurp title over the entire parcel.
●Economic Sabotage of the Rehat Ekpoi Road (2004): When Ebom obtained counterpart funding from the Cross River State Community and Social Development Agency to reconstruct the historic colonial road (“Eto Ohara”) linking Efuroma Hill through Bahumono Secondary Grammar School to Rehat Ekpoi Beach, Ebijakara petitioned the State Government, banned their drivers from using the route, and mounted economic blockades because it provided commuters an alternative to the Ebijakara beach.
●The 2005 Census Manipulation: During the National Population Commission’s enumeration mapping, Ebijakara bribed field officers to map the Council Health Centre and Ebom’s Paradise New Layout into Ebijakara. It required an official petition to the State Federal Commissioner, Barr. Harry Ezeoke, to rectify the fraud.
● Sabotage of the 2005 Peace Mediation Committee: In November 2005, the Cross River State Government inaugurated a mediation committee headed by retired Permanent Secretary Chief Owali Ilem. On 6th January 2006, when a crucial peace meeting was convened at Chief Ilem’s residence, Ebijakara completely boycotted the sitting.
Their militant leader, Mr Egbe Uzong Egwu (alias Egbe Augustine), personally confronted Chief Ilem, boasting that Ebijakara was not interested in mediation and would execute what it intended to do.
● The Meeting at Elder Bolaji Anani’s Residence: Contemporaneously, a peace meeting was summoned at the residence of Elder Bolaji Anani in Ediba, attended by Bahumono chiefs and elders, including delegations from Ebijakara. Tellingly, when a presiding clergyman prayed that God should eradicate from existence any community planning or initiating war against its neighbours, the Ebijakara delegation responded with the loudest ovation. Within five days of that meeting, Ebijakara launched their armed invasion.
The facts are yet to be concluded!
Ofem Irem Okpokpo is a Cross Riverian, and writes from Ebom, Abi LGA.
Note: opinion expressed in this article is strictly attributed to the author Ofem Irem Okpokpo and does not represent the opinion of CrossRiverWatch or any other organization the author works for/with.
Short Link:
Leave feedback about this