Former Akwa Ibom State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Ekpenyong Ntekim has faulted the comments of former Attorney-General of the Federation and Justice Minister Mr. Michael Kaase Aondoakaa (SAN) on the Supreme Court’s judgment on the littoral status of Cross River State.
In an advert published in this newspaper today, Ntekim described as misleading Aondoakaa’s claim in the This Day of August 20 that Cross River remained a littoral state based on “naval data” and “technical reports” allegedly relied upon by the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s administration.
Ntekim said it was unfortunate that Aondoakaa, who was directly involved as first defendant in Supreme Court case number 250/2009: Attorney- General, Cross River State v Attorney-General of the Federation & Attorney-General, Akwa Ibom State could make such claims 16 years after the case was filed; 15 years after he left office, and 13 years after the apex court had conclusively determined the matter.
Quoting some judicial pronouncements, Ntekim recalled that superior courts of record had reprimanded Aondoakaa for his professional conduct, particularly his advice to public institutions to disobey subsisting judgments.
He cited the 2021 Supreme Court decision in appeal number 939/2015: Michael K. Aondoakaa v Emmanuel Bassey Obot, where Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun (JSC, as she then was) described his conduct as “highly reprehensible” and concluded that he “ought not to be entrusted with any other public office at all.”
READ ALSO: Nigeria’s killer touts
Ntekim said Aondoakaa’s latest intervention was an opportunistic attempt to “revive relevance in the legal community” and to reopen the settled issue of the 76 oil wells between Akwa Ibom and Cross River states.
He dismissed Aondoakaa’s claim that the presence of the Eastern Naval Command in Calabar proved Cross River’s littoral status. Ntekim said the Nigerian Navy has established strategic operations in non-littoral states, such as Kogi, Niger, and Anambra purely for internal security reasons.
“The public must be guided to treat Mr. Aondoakaa’s assertions with caution. By his role in the case, he is most incompetent to advise or take a contrary position to what he defended as Attorney-General of the Federation. The Supreme Court’s judgment remains final and binding,” Ntekim said.