Crisis persists as group of kingmakers reject re-election of Obong of Calabar

Fresh crisis is brewing in the Obongship tussle in Calabar, as a group of Etuboms (kingmakers) has rejected recent re-election of the Obong.

The Obong, Edidem Ekpo Okon Abasi Otu, was re-elected and proclaimed the Obong of Calabar on January 18 by the Etubom Conclaves, complying with the Supreme Court January 13 judgment that sacked the Obong and called for a fresh election.

The rejection is contained in a statement signed by 13 members of Etubom Conclave and read to newsmen by the Chairman, His Royal Majesty, Etubom Ntiero Efiwwat, at the palace of the Obong.

But some Etuboms of the palace: former chairman, Etubom Traditional Rulers Council, Etubom Essien Ekpenyong Efiok; former secretary of the Council, Etubom Micah Archibong VI; and Chairman, Central Calabar Traditional Council and Paramount Ruler of Calabar South Council, Etubom Nyong Effiom Okon have kicked against selection process that produced Edidem Ekpo Okon Abasi Otu as Obong on January 18.

In the statement, jointly signed by them on behalf of the Etuboms Traditional Rulers Council, the Etuboms stated: “All those who took part in the selection process were not qualified to take part in the process.”

They insisted Efiok and Archibong VI, who were chairman and secretary, respectively, of the council and also respondents in both appeals, “should have conducted the proceedings in line with the 2002 Constitution as ordered by the Supreme Court, but that was not the case.

“The traditional rulers relied on Supreme Court’s decision, which threw the fresh selection process open to Western Calabar, comprising Ikoneto, Adiabo and Creek town and the contestants should have been qualified before taking part in the process.

“Those Etuboms , who took part in the process and proclamation, are not qualified as 11 of them are those capped by the dethroned Obong of Calabar.”

The traditional rulers urged the state governor to intervene in the matter to forestall a breakdown of law and order and ensure unbiased implementation of the decisions of the Supreme Court.”