By Ben Omotomiye
Public debate is at its best when it illuminates truth through facts rather than obscures it with rhetoric. It is therefore appropriate to respond to Mr. Kazeem Isa Olasupo’s recent article on the Eba Island Oilfield, not because disagreement is unwelcome, but because the integrity of public discourse demands that assertions be distinguished from evidence and opinion from established fact.
At first reading, Mr. Olasupo’s essay appears persuasive. Upon closer examination, however, one discovers that its confidence rests less on demonstrable proof than on repeated assertion. It is a familiar forensic principle that the frequency with which a proposition is repeated does not increase its truthfulness. Facts require evidence; allegations require proof.
My previous article neither proclaimed Atijere Kingdom the indisputable owner of Eba Island nor invited the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited or any operator to determine a boundary dispute. It advanced a far simpler proposition: where ownership of a strategic national asset remains disputed, constitutional prudence requires that every community presenting a credible claim be accorded recognition and engagement pending lawful determination by the institutions empowered to decide such matters.
Curiously, Mr. Olasupo never truly confronts that proposition. Instead, he substitutes an entirely different argument—that Atijere’s claim lacks credibility because he says so. That is not legal reasoning; it is circular reasoning.
Throughout his article, the reader repeatedly encounters declarations that Makun Omi Kingdom possesses “longstanding, verifiable historical and administrative ties” to Eba Island. Those words invite admiration but also demand substantiation. Where are the official colonial records? Where are the survey plans? Where are the government gazettes? Where are the archival documents? Where are the judicial decisions? Where are the official administrative instruments by which these alleged ties may be independently verified?
One searches the article in vain.
Instead of documentary evidence, the reader is offered confidence. Unfortunately, confidence is not evidence.
Equally unpersuasive is the attempt to invalidate Atijere Kingdom’s position by arguing that its claim became more visible after petroleum was discovered. This argument suffers from a fundamental logical defect. It confuses the timing of public attention with the existence of legal rights.
History is replete with dormant territorial disputes that acquired prominence only after valuable resources were discovered. Gold did not create ownership. Diamonds did not create ownership. Oil does not create ownership. Resources merely expose unresolved questions that had long existed beneath the surface. The chronology of publicity cannot determine the legality of title.
Indeed, if every territorial claim that gained prominence following the discovery of economic resources were automatically dismissed as opportunistic, many internationally recognised boundary settlements would never have occurred.
Perhaps the weakest aspect of Mr. Olasupo’s essay is its deliberate migration from constitutional argument into personal criticism. Significant attention is devoted to alleged actions and motivations of the Molokun of Atijere Kingdom. Whether those allegations are true or false is ultimately immaterial to the legal issue before the public.
Boundaries are not determined by perceptions of a monarch’s political choices. Territorial ownership is established through historical evidence, legal instruments, constitutional processes and competent adjudication—not through character assessment.
Law concerns itself with evidence, not personalities.
The article also contains an internal contradiction that deserves careful attention. Having acknowledged that constitutional institutions such as the National Boundary Commission exist precisely to determine disputes of this nature, the author nevertheless proceeds to pronounce judgment himself by declaring Makun Omi’s claim “solid” and Atijere’s claim untenable.
One cannot simultaneously insist that constitutional institutions should decide a dispute while also announcing, in advance of their determination, which side has already won. Such reasoning defeats the very due process it professes to defend.
My article never sought to pressure government into recognising Atijere Kingdom as the successful claimant. It merely argued that government and operators should refrain from excluding any community with a demonstrable claim until the constitutional process has spoken. There is a profound difference between advocating inclusion and demanding victory.
Unfortunately, that distinction appears to have been either misunderstood or deliberately ignored.
Even more concerning is the repeated use of expressions such as “desperation,” “opportunism,” “late-arriving claim,” and “fighting alone.” These expressions may enrich political commentary, but they contribute nothing whatsoever to historical inquiry. They neither establish title nor disprove it. They merely substitute emotional colouring for factual analysis.
History is not determined by adjectives.
The Nigerian public deserves better than competing narratives clothed in certainty. It deserves evidence. If Makun Omi Kingdom possesses the historical materials repeatedly alluded to in Mr. Olasupo’s article, those documents should be presented before the appropriate constitutional authorities. Equally, Atijere Kingdom is prepared to present its own historical records, traditional accounts, documentary evidence and legal authorities before any impartial institution empowered by law to determine the matter.
That is how civilised societies resolve disputes.
My earlier intervention was motivated not by hostility but by concern. The Petroleum Industry Act recognises the importance of host communities precisely because exclusion breeds resentment, and resentment, when ignored, often matures into instability. The lesson of the Niger Delta is not that every claimant is automatically correct. The lesson is that governments ignore competing claims at great national cost.
The responsible path is therefore neither triumphalism nor dismissal. It is patient investigation, institutional neutrality and faithful adherence to constitutional procedure.
When that process is concluded, whichever side the evidence ultimately favours should command the respect of all.
Until then, no amount of rhetorical flourish can substitute for proof.
For in law, as in history, evidence remains the highest authority.
Foinally, much has been made of the supposed conduct of the Molokun of Atijere Kingdom. I deliberately refrain from responding in kind. Traditional institutions deserve respect, and public discourse should not descend into personalities. If the strength of a territorial claim depends upon attacking a monarch rather than producing documentary evidence, then that claim has already betrayed its own weakness. The issue before Nigeria is not the character of any traditional ruler but the location of a territorial boundary. The latter is determined by law, not by polemics.
Ben Omotomiye
About the Author
