Calls have intensified for the release of Princess Godsown Udoito, an Ekid activist facing criminal charges in Akwa Ibom State, as concerns continue over the dispute involving the controversial Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve and Governor Umo Eno’s administration.
The renewed agitation followed a statement by a concerned Ekid youth who announced a peaceful one-man march demanding Udoito’s freedom, arguing that she has spent months in custody over comments made against Governor Umo Eno.
Udoito, a social media activist and advocate for Ekid ancestral land claims, was arrested and arraigned before the Akwa Ibom State High Court over allegations bordering on criminal defamation, threats, publication of false information and conduct likely to cause a breach of public peace.
The police had alleged that Udoito used her Facebook platform to make publications accusing Governor Eno of unlawfully dealing with ancestral lands in Eket Local Government Area and the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve, claims the authorities described as defamatory and capable of causing public disorder.
Supporters of the activist, however, maintain that her actions were linked to advocacy for the rights of the Ekid people over the disputed forest reserve and should not be treated as a criminal offence.
The controversy has attracted wider reactions after Ekid groups criticised what they described as attempts to criminalise opposition over the Stubbs Creek issue. The groups have insisted that their concerns about the reserve are based on ancestral rights and legal processes.
The Akwa Ibom State Government has maintained that the Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve remains under government authority and has rejected claims surrounding ownership and alleged land dealings.
Meanwhile, supporters calling for Udoito’s release argue that she has apologised for remarks directed at the governor and should be allowed to reunite with her family, especially after reportedly losing her father while in detention.
The campaigners appealed to Governor Umo Eno to demonstrate what they described as “fatherly leadership” by considering mercy and allowing the legal dispute to be resolved without prolonged detention.
The case has continued to fuel debate over freedom of expression, citizens’ rights to advocacy, and the balance between protecting public order and allowing criticism of government policies.
