Fresh crisis is brewing in the Obongship tussle of Calabar as a group of Etuboms (king makers) have rejected the recent re-election of a new 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.
This was contained in a statement signed by 13 members of the Etubom Conclaves and read to newsmen by the Chairman, His Royal Majesty, Etubom Ntiero Efiwwat, at the palace of the Obong.
However some legitimate Etuboms of the Palace of the Obong of Calabar, former Chairman, Etubom Traditional Rulers Council, Etubom Essien Ekpenyong Efiok, former Secretary Etuboms Traditional Rulers Council, Etubom Micah Archibong VI and the Chairman, Central Calabar Traditional Council and Paramount Ruler of Calabar South Local Government Area, Etubom Nyong Effiom Okon have kicked against selection process that produced Edidem Ekpo Okon Abasi Otu as Obong on January 18.
In a statement yesterday jointly signed by them on behalf of the Etuboms Traditional Rulers Council. the Etuboms stated clearly that “all those who took part in the selection process were not qualified to take part in the process”.
They insisted that Etubom Efiok and Etubom Archibong VI who were the Chairman and Secretary respectively of the Etuboms’ Traditional Rulers Council as well as 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 the Supreme Court 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”.
The statement stated categorically that “those 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 therefore urged “the State Governor to intervene in the matter to forestall a breakdown of Law and Order and ensure the unbiased implementation of the decisions of the Supreme Court”.