By Frank Ulom
CALABAR (CONVERSEER) – The recent removal of Ntufam Linus Effiong Oben Tabi as the head of Mbot Akpa and Ekinta Clan in Akamkpa Local Government Area by Governor Bassey Otu has drawn attention to the Cross River State Edict No. 1 of 1996, the legal framework guiding the recognition of clans and villages in the state.
What the Edict Entails
The Clan Creation Edict of 1996 was introduced to bring order, structure, and transparency to the recognition of traditional communities across Cross River State.
It provides:
- An official register of all recognised clans and villages.
- Legal backing for government recognition of traditional institutions.
- Criteria for the appointment and certification of village and clan heads.
The Edict also protects communities against arbitrary or fraudulent claims of recognition by individuals seeking to exploit chieftaincy titles for influence or financial gain.
Why It Matters
Mbot Akpa, the community at the centre of the current controversy, is not listed under the Edict, according to findings by the Department of Chieftaincy Affairs. This made the certificate of recognition obtained by Ntufam Tabi invalid in the eyes of the law.
The government maintains that only clans and villages expressly listed in the Edict can have recognised leadership. Any attempt to create or duplicate communities outside this framework is considered unlawful.
Impact on Traditional Leadership
By enforcing the provisions of the Edict, the state seeks to:
- Ensure legitimacy and stability in traditional institutions.
- Prevent conflicts arising from overlapping or disputed claims.
- Strengthen the authority of duly recognised traditional rulers.
The Edict is therefore not just an administrative guideline but a tool for preserving cultural order and peace within communities.
Lessons from the Tabi Case
The case underscores how deviations from the Edict can destabilise local governance. Critics argued that Tabi’s attempt to simultaneously head two clans in different local government areas was illegal and divisive, violating both tradition and law.
Governor Otu’s decision, backed by the petition of traditional rulers, signals that the government will continue to rely on the Edict to maintain order in chieftaincy affairs.
