Amanyanabo Dokubo-Asari has reacted to allegations surrounding Royal Fouche Services Limited and the longstanding land disagreement between the Udekama and Obuama communities in Rivers State.
The monarch said he was deeply disappointed by claims portraying Royal Fouche as an “occupation army” and accusing the company of taking over community land.
Speaking with journalists, Dokubo-Asari said the controversy had been wrongly connected to him despite the fact that the land dispute predates his involvement and, according to him, his birth.
The Dokubo-Asari Royal Fouche controversy follows allegations by the Udekama Council of Chiefs concerning the activities of the private security company and its alleged involvement in the territorial dispute.
Dokubo-Asari insisted that he was not involved in the court proceedings that produced the earlier judgments concerning the disputed property and said he had never claimed ownership of the land.
How the land dispute started
The monarch said the roots of the disagreement could be traced to development plans previously undertaken by Obuama.
According to him, Obuama had operated a system in which community land was allocated to qualified members for development as part of its periodic development programmes.
He said land was allocated in 2020 along the route connecting communities including Tema, Okpo, Obuama, Degema and Abonema.
Dokubo-Asari explained that the road running through the area was constructed in 1973 during the administration of then Military Governor Commander Diete Spiff, adding that compensation was paid to communities affected by the project.
He said problems arose when Obuama attempted to commence development on portions of land allocated under its plan, as the Usokun people reportedly challenged the ownership of the property.
The matter, he said, eventually went before the courts.
Dokubo-Asari maintained that there was no court order preventing Obuama from developing the land but said the community decided against taking action while the dispute remained unresolved because it preferred a peaceful legal process.
‘I was not part of this dispute’
The monarch argued that existing court records showed the disagreement had been in existence long before the present controversy.
He referenced a High Court case, DHC/76/CS/2020, involving Chief Charles Sunday-Ugu VII and others against Chief Kalada Samuel Harry and another party.
According to Dokubo-Asari, the judgment addressed issues including whether the claimants were prevented from reopening matters already decided in earlier litigation and whether they had successfully established ownership of the disputed property through traditional evidence.
He said the court referred to an earlier 1938 Native Court judgment in favour of Obuama, which he stated had not been overturned.
Dokubo-Asari therefore questioned why he was being presented as a central figure in a dispute in which he said he had never been a litigant.
Read Also:https://e247mag.com/eefcc-staff-dism…uption-olukoyede/
Dokubo-Asari rejects ‘occupation army’ claim
The monarch also dismissed the description of Royal Fouche as an “army of occupation.”
He questioned what territory the company had supposedly occupied and challenged those making the allegation to identify any community or parcel of land allegedly taken over by the security firm.
Dokubo-Asari said Royal Fouche had carried out security operations on land and waterways across several local government areas for about four years.
He argued that providing security services should not be interpreted as claiming ownership of the areas where the company operates.
The monarch further said Royal Fouche had operated along the Emuohia/Kalabari road without receiving payment from the state government or the four local government areas involved.
He credited the company’s personnel, whom he referred to as “Amama/Apapa Soldiers,” with helping to reduce incidents of kidnapping and armed robbery along the route.
Dokubo-Asari urged journalists and residents to speak with communities and transport operators in the area to assess the impact of the security operations.
Monarch calls for proper investigation
Dokubo-Asari said he was not opposed to an investigation if there was credible evidence of criminal activity.
He, however, warned against making serious accusations without producing evidence or allowing the relevant authorities to investigate the claims.
The monarch said allegations involving terrorism, genocide or land occupation should not be casually attached to an individual or organisation.
He maintained that the land dispute should be treated separately from the security activities of Royal Fouche.
Dokubo-Asari gives historical account
The Amanyanabo also presented his account of the historical relationship between the Udekama people and the Kalabari Kingdom.
He claimed that his ancestor, King Amakiri I, settled the people in the area after bringing them from the Andoni and Engenni areas of present-day Rivers State.
According to the monarch, they lived along the coastal fringes and served as a form of early-warning network for the Kalabari during periods of conflict.
Dokubo-Asari also argued that the group’s historical development and education benefited from the support of the Kalabari people and the Baptist Convention.
He said historical accounts, documentary evidence and previous court decisions should all be considered when examining the dispute.
Dokubo-Asari seeks peaceful resolution
Despite the accusations and counter-accusations, Dokubo-Asari said his priority remained peaceful relations between neighbouring communities within the Kalabari area.
He maintained that Obuama’s decision to rely on the courts rather than confrontation should not be interpreted as weakness.
The monarch called for the land issue to be separated from the wider security concerns and urged all parties to allow evidence and the law to guide the resolution of the matter.
Dokubo-Asari also said he was prepared to welcome a judicial panel of inquiry established by the Rivers State Government to investigate the allegations of land grabbing.
He said such a process would provide an opportunity for the claims to be properly examined and determined.