Why Edo-Kogi boundary disputes linger

The Edo and Kogi states boundary disputes have remained unresolved due to vanished landmarks, competing claims and community resistance.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

The Director-General, National Boundary Commission (NBC), Adamu Adaji, disclosed this in an exclusive interview with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Abuja on Sunday.

He said technical and administrative efforts had produced an approved boundary line, but implementation faced resistance from communities along the corridor.

Meanwhile, Mr Adaji said the commission recorded progress on the Abia-Anambra boundary, with 15 kilometres of the 23-kilometre stretch already agreed upon.

According to Mr Adaji, the Edo-Kogi boundary was defined under Legal Notice No. 126 of 1954, which established the boundary between the Northern and Western Regions.

He said some physical features referenced in the document had disappeared over time, making it difficult for experts to accurately trace the boundary.

Mr Adaji said technical experts had attempted to interpret the historical documents, but the disappearance of landmarks introduced subjective judgment into determining the boundary.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

“This has led the parties to continue laying claims in different areas,” Mr Adaji said, recalling efforts dating back to 2006 to establish the boundary.

He said the commission considered the claims of both states and eventually produced a line regarded as the boundary between Edo and Kogi.

Mr Adaji said the proposed boundary was subsequently approved by the Internal Boundary Committee, paving the way for its physical demarcation.

However, the NBC boss said the exercise encountered resistance when the contractor moved to establish the approved boundary on the ground.

He said communities along the corridor objected, arguing that the proposed line did not correspond with their understanding of the boundary.

“The affected communities consequently resisted the demarcation, prompting the commission to engage stakeholders and seek broader agreement,” he said.

Mr Adaji said the parties met again earlier in the year to determine how the approved boundary could be physically established and assess its implications.

He said the agreement was challenged after some parties withheld full cooperation and presented documents indicating possible changes to the boundary.

“Some documents included court judgments that have not previously been brought to the commission’s attention.

“We have to examine these issues and engage the states so that we can arrive at a common understanding,” he said.

Mr Adaji said the Edo-Kogi boundary process remained ongoing, adding that the commission had agreed to commence demarcation when 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 said.

NAN reports that the Edo–Kogi boundary dispute involves Ogori–Ekpedo, Okene–Okpella, and the Ake axis, where boundary interpretation and demarcation remain contested.

NAN also reports that the NBC is addressing farmland disputes between Ibaji communities in Kogi and Uloshi/Esan South-East in Edo, alongside the broader interstate demarcation.

Turning to Abia-Anambra, Mr Adaji said the two states shared close cultural and ethnic ties, with communities on both sides maintaining strong social relationships.

He explained that their boundary emerged from colonial-era divisions that were not adequately documented or clearly defined, creating room for competing claims.

“Abia-Anambra boundary stretches about 23 kilometres, with the two states agreeing on 15 kilometres, leaving approximately eight kilometres unresolved,” he said.

Mr Adaji said communities along the remaining eight-kilometre corridor had maintained strong claims and counterclaims over particular areas.

He said one state could accuse communities from the other side of developing disputed land to create an impression of annexation.

According to him, the commission secured agreement from both states to support efforts aimed at resolving the outstanding eight-kilometre stretch.

Mr Adaji said the states met with the commission in July and agreed to support fieldwork to re-establish the disputed boundary.

He said the exercise could initially produce two lines reflecting the respective claims before eventually arriving at one clearly defined boundary.

“These are essentially the same people.

“They have intermarried, carry out many activities together and speak the same language,” he said.

NAN reports the Abia-Anambra dispute centres on Umunneochi-Orumba South, particularly Umuaku, Ezioba and Owerre-Ezukala. The boundary is about 23km.

NBC has delineated 15km, while about 8km remains unresolved, involving Ezioba–Umuaku and neighbouring Anambra communities, pending final demarcation.

Mr Adaji urged communities to cooperate, stressing that the commission was promoting enlightenment and cooperation among states, local governments and boundary communities.

He also advised governments and stakeholders to protect the property rights of people living along boundary corridors, regardless of which state ultimately administers their locations.

“Boundaries are primarily for administrative purposes. People can own properties across boundaries,” Mr Adaji said.

He urged State and Local Government Boundary Committees to work with the commission to properly educate residents about the purpose and implications of boundaries.

READ ALSO: Abia, Anambra commit to peaceful resolution of boundary disputes

Mr Adaji said traditional institutions, community leaders, state and local governments should encourage cooperation and discourage actions capable of triggering conflict.

“Any crisis that results in the loss of lives and property because of boundaries is unnecessary and should not be encouraged in any way,” he said.

He said Nigerians living along boundary corridors should view themselves as one people and remain free to live and own property across administrative boundaries.

(NAN)