By
Okon Offiong
The recent directive by Governor Umo Eno, prohibiting Ekpo masquerade activities across Akwa Ibom State, has generated widespread concern among cultural custodians, traditionalists, and lovers of heritage at home and in the diaspora.
More than a mere administrative decision, the ban strikes at the heart of a tradition that predates colonial history and remains central to the cultural identity of the Ibibio, Annang, Oro, Obolo and other people.
Would anyone see Ekpo as a pastime? Absolutely no. It is not. It is a traditional institution, one that forms part of the intangible heritage of Akwa Ibom State. Any attempt to outlaw it entirely therefore raises serious cultural, legal, and historical questions.
While announcing the ban, the Governor declared: “Let those who want to criticize start writing… there are things I don’t care about. I hold on to my belief and you cannot change it.”
Regrettably, such remarks hardly suggest a leader seeking dialogue or demonstrating sensitivity toward traditional practitioners. They instead project an attitude that prioritizes personal belief over the collective cultural identity of the people.
The Governor further stated: “This is a Christian state… keep Ekpo out of Christmas village… we ban Ekpo on our streets.”
However, Akwa Ibom, though religiously vibrant, is constitutionally not a theocratic state. Government decisions must reflect pluralism, not personal creed.
The blanket ban, therefore, appears to sideline, rather than protect the rights and sentiments of traditional believers and cultural custodians.
Let us even look away from that angle and focus on the legal and International Implications of such government decisions.
There is no ambiguity to the fact that Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, under Section 21, mandates the state to “protect, preserve and promote the culture of the people.”
So, a complete proscription on Ekpo directly contradicts this duty.
Again, regionally, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 17) guarantees citizens the right to participate in cultural life.
Moreso, at the international level, UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) encourages governments to preserve; note the word, PRESERVE, and not abolish ancestral traditions. By these standards, the recent ban not only suppresses cultural identity but sadly undermines global commitments to heritage protection.
The ban, from commentaries thereof, is one decision that has brought disappointment to those in the diaspora and with the potential for local cultural loss. This is because for decades, festive seasons in Akwa Ibom have been marked by vibrant displays of Ekpo masquerades, an attraction that draws thousands of sons and daughters home during Christmas. To many in the diaspora, Ekpo is the emotional bridge that reconnects them with their roots. The ban is therefore widely seen as a joy-killer, stripping Christmas celebrations of cultural colour, candour, performance, and meaning. At a time when other nations are investing heavily in cultural tourism, Akwa Ibom, with the declaration by the Governor, is moving in the opposite direction.
At this point, what should be considered the real issue, in my opinion are the criminal elements, not Ekpo masquerades. The government had cited cases of extortion, intimidation, and disruption by individuals hiding under Ekpo attire.
To every fair-minded fellow, these concerns are valid, but they do not justify abolishing an entire institution.
It is common knowledge that criminal elements, with high level of atrocious activities, exist in most of our government institutions.
Yet, the society does not advocate for the institutions to be abolished because of a few rogue personnel; it rather emphasizes punishment for offenders and reforms in the system.
It is my candid opinion that this same logic should apply to Ekpo.
Those who commit crimes under the guise of masquerade should be identified, arrested, and prosecuted. Their actions should not be used as grounds to exterminate a centuries-old cultural practice.
Rather than a blanket ban, the state should pursue a more constructive approach, through engagements with traditional custodians and push for regulated performance and ensure identification for authentic Ekpo practitioners.
Furthermore, reforms should be embraced, not eradication. Similar to ongoing discussions on easing bride-price burdens. Such measures would address security concerns without harming cultural heritage. The ban on Ekpo masquerade is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. It conflicts with constitutional obligations, disregards international heritage norms, and undermines the cultural identity of Akwa Ibom people.
Culture is not an enemy. Criminality is. Ekpo does not need abolition; it needs regulation, reform, and protection.
As an advocate for an enduring and sustainable heritage, I urge the state government to reconsider this position and embrace a more culturally responsible path. Outright banning of Ekpo masquerade is not the solution and Akwa Ibom deserves better.
Okon Offiong writes from Akwa Ibom State
