By Ade Oyeyemi
The National Boundary Commission has identified missing historical landmarks, competing claims and resistance from affected communities as major factors delaying the resolution of the boundary dispute between Edo and Kogi states.
The Director-General of the NBC, Adamu Adaji, disclosed this in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria in Abuja on Sunday.
Adaji explained that although technical and administrative processes had produced an approved boundary line between the two states, efforts to physically demarcate the line had encountered opposition from communities along the disputed corridor.
According to him, the Edo-Kogi boundary was originally defined under Legal Notice No. 126 of 1954, which established the boundary between the then Northern and Western Regions.
He said some of the physical features used as reference points in the colonial-era document had disappeared over the years, making it difficult for technical experts to accurately locate the original boundary.
Adaji said attempts by experts to interpret the historical documents had sometimes involved subjective judgments because of the disappearance of the landmarks.
He added that the situation had allowed both states and communities to maintain competing claims over some areas, despite efforts by the commission dating back to 2006 to resolve the dispute.
The NBC boss said the commission had considered the positions of the two states and eventually produced a boundary line regarded as the agreed demarcation.
He explained that the proposed line was subsequently approved by the Internal Boundary Committee, after which plans were made for physical demarcation.
However, Adaji said the process stalled when communities resisted the contractor deployed to establish the approved boundary on the ground, arguing that the proposed line did not reflect their understanding of the traditional boundary.
He said the commission subsequently engaged the affected communities and other stakeholders in an effort to build consensus, adding that fresh meetings were held earlier in the year to examine how the approved line could be implemented.
According to him, the process became more complicated after some parties produced documents suggesting possible alterations to the boundary, including court judgments that had not previously been presented to the commission.
“We have to examine these issues and engage the states so that we can arrive at a common understanding,” Adaji said.
He, however, said the NBC remained committed to resolving the dispute and would commence physical demarcation once the necessary resources became available.
“We are still looking for the resources to undertake it. Where challenges arise, we will address them as we encounter them,” he added.
The Edo-Kogi dispute affects areas including Ogori-Ekpedo, Okene-Okpella and the Ake axis, where disagreements over the interpretation and physical location of the boundary have persisted.
The commission is also addressing related farmland disputes involving communities in Kogi and Edo states, including Ibaji and Uloshi/Esan South-East.
Meanwhile, Adaji disclosed that the NBC had made progress in resolving the boundary dispute between Abia and Anambra states, saying 15 kilometres of the approximately 23-kilometre stretch had been agreed upon.
He said the remaining eight-kilometre section remained contentious, particularly around communities in the Umunneochi-Orumba South axis, including Umuaku, Ezioba and Owerre-Ezukala.
The NBC director-general said the two states had agreed to cooperate with the commission in conducting fresh fieldwork to establish the disputed section.
He explained that the exercise could initially produce separate lines reflecting the positions of the two states before the parties eventually agree on a single boundary.
Adaji stressed that the close cultural and social ties between communities on both sides of the Abia-Anambra boundary made cooperation particularly important.
“These are essentially the same people. They have intermarried, carry out many activities together and speak the same language,” he said.
He urged state governments, local authorities and boundary communities to cooperate with the commission, stressing that boundaries were primarily administrative and should not be used to undermine the property rights of residents.
“Boundaries are primarily for administrative purposes. People can own properties across boundaries,” Adaji added.
