{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022401762761659935, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011262088382911005, 'mean_word_length': 4.9455604075691415, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 3, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
FLUCTUATING CO-OPERATION AND TENSIONS IN AKAM – OLULUMO (OKUNI) BOUNDARY RELATIONS.

This study examines the Akam-Olulumo (Okuni) boundary conflict in historical perspective with the aim of determining the causes of the conflict as well as its impact on the socio-economic development of the area. Using the resource-need theory of conflict, the study argues that the struggle for territorial space is inherent in man and hence a necessary consequence of human survival instinct. It further argues that in spite of the inter-dependent nature of the world, individuals, groups and communities continue to struggle for identity, purpose and power, negating the idealist philosophy which is primarily concerned with minimizing conflicts and promoting co-operation among peoples and giving credence to moral and human rights. The study submits that both communities should develop peaceful resolution strategies and promote co-operation between them to engender socio-economic development.

The territorial space argument is further elaborated by Robert Audrey"s "territorial imperative" which argues that animal instincts and human quest for property and nations are inextricably linked to territories. Audrey defined a territory as an area of space which an animal or group of animals defend as an exclusive preserve. Within such a territory, the basic needs and interests of such animal (s) are gratified, among which are security, food, identity, prestige and sovereignty. For Audrey, all animals including man, have a sense of territoriality and would patrol and defend the title "our land or sovereignty of our country, we do it for reasons not different from lower animals" (Audrey, 1967:115). Therefore, where such situations persist, there is every likelihood for conflict to erupt, especially, when the claims of one party to land and territory becomes incompatible with the claims of the other party to satisfy their own basic needs and interests within the same physical territory.
It is further assumed that all boundaries are artificial creation and owning their existence to man, applies to international boundaries between nation-states as well as internal boundaries. Therefore, the exclusive purpose of boundaries artificiality is the allocation of territories to political units which have sovereign recognition of status, roles including self-governing peoples within defined entities (Momoh, 1989:59). However, these artificial and imaginary lines separate one territory from another.
Contrariwise and employing the new thinking or grassroots perspective, Bonchuk (2005) argues in more functional terms that elicit the integrative values of a boundary as a contact point(s) between two objects or between two political jurisdictions. Bonchuk submits that the state-centric paradigm of boundaries which emphasizes the notion of separation and spheres of administrative competence and the transnational conception which reflects the new thinking as osmotic points of contact between adjacent border communities are employed; while, dealing with nation-states boundaries as well as internal boundaries (Bonchuk, 2005:96). Bonchuk rejects in totality the contention that boundaries are wholly a western creation that is unknown to local African communities. Bonchuk argues: in pre-colonial Africa, communities noted the extent of their territories by agreeing on landmarks, such as trees of very distinct nature including the iroko, mahogany, a lasting feature such as an ant-hill, other natural landmarks such as rivers, valleys, mountains, hills etc. (Bonchuk, 2005:83). 693 Conceptually, traditional boundaries have the potential for conflict, but, in spite of that it can be further argued that: the co-operative features were more prominent as these boundaries were not regarded as sacrosanct. Rather, they enabled the questions of geographical definition of kinship groups and marked growth in human social organisations whose utility value in the past was its ability to promote inter-group harmony… (Bonchuk, 2005:89).
Following from the above, it is possible to buttress that internal boundary and communal conflict as well as rural underdevelopment have characterised the Akam-Olulumo (Okuni) relations with attendant effects such as threat to security of life and property.
Notwithstanding the boundary conflict however, the boundary lines between Akam and Olulumo (Okuni) communities are very fluid. Traditions of origin suggest that the former migrated and settled in their present abode courtesy of the latter benevolence in the spirit of "live and let"s live." Besides, ethnic and linguistic differences, available evidence further indicates that it was the quest for economic prosperity that motivated the former to embark on aggressive acquisition of land and other natural resources after a long stay. Y. H. Goblet corroborates and submits that: People attracted by land move towards regions of gentle relief and soil…. Often with little resistance and such people would advance until they encounter geographical or human forces which are too powerful to overcome by their own force of expansion. It is in an attempt to overpower another opponent that causes or brings about intercommunal or boundary conflicts… (Goblet, 1995: 504). Resenau (2005) noted that boundary management encompasses the activities of governments, but it also includes any actor who resorts to communal mechanisms to make demands from goals, issue directives and pursue policies. It is further argued that: with ever greater interdependence corroding long-established boundaries and enabling the consequences of actions by individuals and groups as well as those launched by government to spread beyond the communities in which they originate… co-operation along territorial margins has come to be marked by density and complexity (Resenau 2005:152)

Traditions of Origins and Migrations
The origin of Olulumo (Okuni) like many other pre-literate societies is obscure. It is very difficult as a direct consequence of these factors to place the origins in exact historical setting. However, popular traditions of origin and migration of Olulumo can conveniently be reduced to two surviving versions. The first version flexibly posited that the origins of Olulumo people is associated with the migration of Olulumo and Umo (Yakur) from an unknown locale to Onughi hills. The second and perhaps the most popular, categorically maintained that the Olulumo ancestral homeland was at Onughi hills with other Abe Ayi groups (Okongor, 1982:12).
According to the first version, the Olulumo people migrated from with their Yakur neighbours from an unknown locale in the Cameroon Mountain to Onughi (Interview with Chief Enya Agbor on 07/07/2007). In this version, it must be reiterated that the "unknown locale" has remained a puzzle to researchers and Olulumo people themselves, thereby making this version illusive.
This version however, maintains that it was at Onughi that there was a sad discovery by the Olulumo peoples that their Yakur neighbours were cannibals. The version holds that there was a tacit agreement entered into between the Olulumo and Yakur to undertake the burial of each other"s corpses. This agreement was however breached by the Yakur people. My informant narrates thus: There was a certain widow who lost her only daughter and was interested to see how and where her daughter would be buried. She therefore followed the corpse bearers from a distance to the groove where Olulumo citizens were said to be buried. She hid herself in the bush to see how her only child would be decently buried. But, to her surprise, she painfully watched her only daughter"s corpse being dismembered and put into a huge pot and placed on fire hob made of stones and cooked. In reaction to the unfortunate experience, the demented widow reported to her kinsmen, the Yakur Chiefs were invited by the Olulumo Chiefs to ascertain the credibility of the alleged cannibalism. During the meeting, the Olulumo people insisted that the Yakur should conduct them round the cemetery for an inspection of the graves of all her citizens who had previously passed on. The Yakur would afterwards, undertake a similar 694 exercise of Yakur citizens" graves after fourteen days. Thus, it was at the cemetery that the Olulumo people saw fire hobs, cooking pots, human skulls and bones (Interview with Chief Akwa Mpama on 07/07/2007).
The evidence of fire hobs, cooking pots, human skulls and bones were indicative of the fact that the Yakur were actually cannibals. A near crisis situation was averted by the decision of the Olulumo people to migrate away from the Onughi hills.
However, before the purported decision to migrate could materialize, a certain slave hunter Nsor Etughi Oba was said to have undertaken a hunting expedition in which he allegedly shot an elephant which escaped but was later found at the bank of the Cross River. The slave hunter went back and reported his novelty to his master Etughi Oba, who decided to move with his family to the bank of the Cross River to found the present Olulumo settlement (Okongor, 1982:12).
In other words, the second tradition holds a similar view about the Olulumo stay at Onughi with their Yakur neighbours. The circumstances that compelled movement has already been explained in the first version. What seem a radical departure from the first version is perhaps, two structural differences which concerned their leadership and the route through which they subsequently migrated. On this score, the second tradition places squarely the leadership of Olulumo people on Nta Agbor, who, Olulumo traditions maintained that he was their chief at Onughi (Interview with James Okongor on 08/07/2007). Nta Agbor and Olulumo people travelled in a north-eastern direction, before taking a western course, wondering into the unknown and unexploited virgin forest that traversed the Onughi area to the Cross River. Nta Agbor was said to have successfully led them to a certain place where he complained of his inability to continue perhaps because of old age or ill-health. Tradition has it that after some days, he died and was buried. As memorial for able leadership, that place which he remained was named Agbotai after Nta Agbor (Interview with James Okongor 80/07/2007).
However, searching for a comfortable abode, the Olulumo were said to have continued moving for a longtime before pitching camp at Otimo Rofaold compound. This view further maintained that it was at Otimo Rofa that the supposed slave hunter shot an elephant which search led to the discovery of Maya -Cross River. The slave hunter went back to Otimo Rofa where he reported about his game that had collapsed on the bank of Maya on some alluvial rock called Itakpa (Okongor, 1982:14; Interview with Chief Nsan Abung on 08/07/2010). Etughi Oba went with the slave hunter to see for himself this spectacular scene and two years later, Etughi Oba moved from Otimo Rofa to this new settlement. The area was a grassland, vast and open hence, the name Olulumo, meaning brightness (interview with Chief Enya Agbor on 08/09/2012).
After a detailed recounting of the outstanding versions on the origins and migration of Olulumo people, the issue of analysis comes to bear. The question here is not just the absence of history in the traditional sense of the word but the lack of adequate methodology of reconstructing the past as it really was. However, according to the two versions of traditions of origin, they gave the impression that the Olulumo migrated from an "unknown locale" to Onughi with the Yakur. This stance is both valid and logical. This is because both traditions had not alluded to the fact that the origins of the Olulumo people were inextricably tied to Onughi, but rather, they came from an "unknown locale." Inversely, it is unrealistic to concede that the Olulumo people originated at Onughi, inferring from the second account. This is because no literature or argument has firmly taken this position and the centre of creation may likely not have been around Onughi. Most importantly, the Olulumo and the Yakur were in a time in their histories, lived together at a place called Onughi. This fact is buttressed by the intelligence report on the Yakur, Agbo and Asiga clans which emphatically stressed that it was fairly certain the Yakur first lived at Okuni (Olulumo) (Chessman, 1935: 66). Also, Otu Abam Ubi has asserted that the ancestral homeland of the Yakur was at Lekanakpakpa hills (Ubi, 1987:78). It should be noted that Olulumo called Lekanakpakpa, Onughi and the change in terminology is as a result of language difference. Yakur traditions of origin and migration indicate that the Olulumo were their neighbours at Lekanakpakpa, and that they were compelled by a conflict to migrate away (Ubi, 1987:86). The said conflict was the violation of burial traditions by the Yakur; a tradition which both Olulumo and the Yakur accept as part of their histories. Talbot submits that it was a practice that subsisted amongst the Upper Cross River people, where friends undertook the burial of corpses (Talbot, 1926:220-228).
Following therefore from the first version that the Olulumo migrated from Onughi straight to their present abode, there seem to be some illogicality and structural weakness in the argument. It is fallacious to assume with certainty 695 that it was at Onughi that the slave hunter shot the elephant, which search eventually led him to discover the Cross River. It might also not have been during the Olulumo primary migration that the present settlement was discovered. What probably happened that after migrating from Onughi, the Olulumo people settled at Otimo Rofa. It must obviously have been at Otimo Rofa that the supposed slave hunter shot the elephant, which carcass he found on Itakpa rock at the bank of the Cross River. The validity this argument also drawn from the fact relating to distance. The distance from Onughi to the Cross River is about 495 kilometres, and it is not possible for the slave hunter to complete that distance by foot in one day. Whereas, the distance from Otimo Rofa to the present Olulumo settlement is just about 58 kilometres. Therefore, it is from Otimo Rofa and during the Olulumo secondary migration that the Cross River was discovered, hence their present settlement.
Linguistically, the Olulumo speak Olulumo language, a sub-group of the Ekoi, who incidentally fall within Murdock, Talbot and Sterk"s classification as semi-Bantu speaking people (Murdock, 1959:238;Talbot, 1926:13-14 andSterk, 1979:220). However, it is difficult to categorically point out the difference between what is Bantu and semi-Bantu, since over the centuries of wondering, a process of social interaction had dissolved that difference.
More so, the peopling of the Cross River -Cameroon border region was not in any extent massive or ethnically coherent movement, rather, what seemed to have happened was a piecemeal movement of splinter groups that settled where they felt secured (Talbot, 1926:216). This might have accounted for the settlement of the Olulumo and the Yakur in the heartland of the Oban hills which are a continuation of the Cameroon Mountain ranges. Therefore, it is possible to accept Talbot"s postulation that an Ekoi group, most probably, Olulumo obtained a piece of land situated around the Oban hills which the Olulumo called Onughi and Yakur, Lekanakpakpa. The land was not vacant. The landlords and host might have been the Ojuk people who having sold their land t0 these strangers (Olulumo and Yakur), were understood to have moved further (Talbot, 1912: 262).
It could be argued too that if the homeland of the Bantu and semi-Bantu is somewhere between Nigeria-Cameroon border area in the Upper Cross River Valley, and the Olulumo people falls within this classification, then, it is logical to associate this with the "unknown locale" as indicated in the first version of Olulumo traditions of origin and migratory history. It was from here that the Olulumo migrated to Onughi then, to Otimo Rofa, and finally settled on the left bank of the Cross River. Finally, Fellows (1935: 67) has concluded that the Olulumo wandering towards the coast apparently occupied a considerable time, probably about thirty years. The Olulumo comfortably settled on their present and permanent abode around C. 1730, where they actively participated in the Atlantic Slave Trade which assumed a magnificent dimension in the Upper Cross River area.
Regarding Akam origins, this study is limited to her secondary migration and settlement in the present location. Indeed, field investigation reveals that the Akam people who are today referred together with Olulumo as Olulumo ward in Ikom Local Government Area of Cross River State are variant of Mbe group whose language is Mbembe spoken predominantly in Obubra area and some dotted spots in Ikom Local Government Areas of Cross River State.
Traditions of origin of the Akam points to Olulumo and the Ogambang -Isabang-Akam -Ochon general area. In other words, there are two contending views on the origins and settlement of the Akam people captured from oral evidence. While one view speaks of autochthonous origin within their present settlement; the other version traces Akam origins from a vague area in Ochon. This contrasting perspective paints a blurred origin of a people and agrees with Frank. N. Enor"s position that "when a people present two different versions of their origins, a closer examination may reveal earlier and later phase of movement. An earlier group who may not remember their place of origins may claim their present locale as a place of origin" (Enor, 2005:225).
The view claiming autochthonous origins points to land ownership on which stands the community farm at Obara in the northern axis of the Cross River forest reserve as well as their involvement in politics in the colonial era. However, informants of this persuasion maintained that their ancestors were Mbembe people whose origin and migration are indigenous. This tradition also asserts that their forebears had not moved beyond a distance of eight to twenty kilometres from their present location. Migration only began after several epidemics had broken out. My informant explained thus: "our ancestors who are Mbembe people originated from here. An epidemic of small pox broke out which caused our people to migrate to Ochon area" (Interview with Chief Francis Egbe on 20/09/2007). Another informant who supports this view affirmed that the Akam people have not come from any other land: "it was due to small pox influenza which took many lives of our people and depopulated the area that our brothers 696 migrated away to Ochon area to found other Mbembe villages in Obubra area" (Interview with Chief James Okey on 20/09/2007).
The claim of autochthonous origins has molded variations to traditions within the same group. This may be due to the addition of more recent events to justify a peoples" claim to ownership of natural resources. On this score, it could be appropriate to postulates that some people have stayed for so long a time in their present locale that they can no longer remember where their ancestors came from (Enor, 2005:226). This succinctly explains the Akam situation as it does not tally with other Mbembe tradition hold. On the Isabang and Ogambang origins, popular traditions of many Mbembe groups claim ethnic origins from the Ochon (Okom) general area of which the Akam people are part of that tradition. For instance, Chief Ejukwa Egom of the same Akam Community explains: Our cradle of origin points to Ogambang and Isabang-Akam near Ochon in Obubra. We are a variant of the Mbe group which earned us the sobriquet Mbembe. My father told me that our people were compelled to move away because of the nature of their forebears who were very troublesome. I mean the nature of the Akam man caused other Mbembe groups to hate him. We were chased away by other Mbembe groups at Ogambang and Isabang-Akam. Our wandering into the forest took us to Mfamosing, but we were not accommodated. It was our search for refuge that took us to meet Abijang somewhere near Obara where the Olulumo people farmed for subsistence… (Interviewed on 30/09/2007).
Corroborating the above submission, Nta Inyang Oguma of Abijang village narrates thus: When we left Mfamosing, we were settled with our co-wanderers the Akam people by our benevolent Olulumo brothers at Obara. This was around 1902. This settlement was made piecemeal because the Akam people were mostly herbalists and native doctors…and claimed they could treat chicken pox, a plaque that ravaged the Olulumo people. Before this period, the Olulumo people were already established in their present permanent settlement and were actively participating in the European river trade. The wealth of the trade that came to the Olulumo people made us together with the Akam people to appeal to the Olulumo people to allow us settle with them at the bank of the Cross River with them and to be partakers in the European trade. It was until 1922 that the Olulumo resettled the Akam people in the present abode on a tenement agreement and we were accommodated by Agbotai, another Olulumo settlement (interviewed on 05/10/2007).
Chief Akwa Mpama shed more light on the rental subject: As a young man, my father told me and it was common knowledge that the Akam people were tenants. When the Olulumo people kept the Akam at their Obara farmlands as native doctors and later discovered that they could not cure chicken pox epidemic as they claimed, their relocation to the bank of the Cross River was under agreement that the Akam people will pay two Shilling annual rent to Olulumo (interviewed 08/10/2007). rom the foregoing, there are some elements of illogicality as adduced from the first version of autochthonous origins of the Akam people. First, the language they speak does not conform to that of their neighbours on either sides, that is, Olulumo and Okangha Mkpansi; but rather, it is in conformity with other Mbembe speakers in Obubra. Secondly, if they actually migrated from their present location to found other Mbembe groups, how come the nucleus of Mbembe origins is not tied to the Olulumo area but Ochon area in Obubra as validated by other Mbembe traditions and why would secondary settlements which they founded develop more than them. Thirdly and most importantly, if the Akam were the original inhabitants of the area, what factors hindered them that took them so long to register their participation in the Cross River trade with the Europeans. Finally, what factors compelled them to become tenants in their own land to the Olulumo people. At this juncture, it could be authoritatively submitted that unless the above questions are convincingly answered, the Akam claim to indigenous origins largely remains speculative and quite uncertain. But, it is important to note, that, in pre-colonial times, Africans being an agricultural peoples, common farmlands dictated the character of inter-group relations as it was with the Olulumo and their migrant settlers (Akam). In spite of the above, the Akam people of Mbembe extraction pretend in all ramifications not to have any traditional attachment with their motherland at Obubra. Rather, they prefer to live on their own since their forceful ejection from Ogambang and Isabang-Akam by their kinsmen and their subsequent migration to Olulumoland. Their collective nomenclature derived from the desire to preserve their identity and position (Enor, 2005:232). This selfconsciousness and purpose was further reinforced in their demand for a separate clan and a native court within Olulumo clan after they were politically merged with Olulumo as Olulumo clan.

697
In other word, between 1902 and 1922, the chiefs and leaders of Olulumo and Akam worked out deliberate mechanisms of alliances mutually acceptable and respected by traditions. Within this framework, recall that the Akam and their Abijang counterparts used farmlands freely with Olulumo at Obara. It was this healthy relationship that informed the Olulumo acceptance to resettle the Akam on a tenement agreement to the bank of the Cross River. However, the Olulumo -Akam relations after the 1922 resettlement were directly opposed to the pre-resettlement era when groups honoured and respected traditional agreements and deliberately built alliances. But, with the emergence of European trade on the Cross River, individualism and competition, especially for farmlands to cultivate yams for export set the Olulumo-Akam relations on a collision course.

Olulumo -Akam Boundary Conflict
The nature of the Akam man caused all other Mbembe groups to hate him. They were chased away from their ancestral home of putative origin. Their search for refuge took them to meet Abijang somewhere at Obara where the Olulumo people farmed for subsistence. They were said to be herbalists and native doctors who claimed they could cure the small pox plague that ravaged the Olulumo people at the time. For that reason, the Olulumo settled them at Obara in 1902 for them to perform their traditional duties of treating the small pox. From 1920, they started appealing to the Olulumo to grant them access the Cross River to enable them partake in the river trade with the Europeans.
The Olulumo reluctantly permitted them to settle in their present abode on a tenement basis of two shillings annual rent. In times of peace with their nature, they paid the rent to about 1935 before they began to default thereby causing Olulumo to take them to court. When asked what the reaction of the Olulumo contingent was during and after the plea, Chief Akwa Mpama explains further: Okim Agabi Nyambi who led the Olulumo delegation told the Council that they are only messengers and they would neither accept nor reject the Council"s plea… but Akam chiefs should go and plead with Olulumo in their customary way… Two weeks later, Akam chiefs namely: Ovarr Egbung, Ovarr Nkom, Ovarr Oyama, Ovarr Edim, Ovarr Njor and Ovarr Okorra came to Olulumo at the Palace of Okim Ofem Odey in Emorrow Clan with a life "He" goat, dry meat, a bottle of palm oil, seven kolanuts, seven jars of palm wine, a metal spear, seven pieces of cowries and a clayed tray. In the presence of other Olulumo chiefs -Chief Osadim Okarafor (Iyami clan), Chief Nsor Enighe (Omom clan), Chief Mbeh Ayebe (Effi clan) and Chief Agabi Nyambi (Emorrow clan) as well as Okim Nkang Omeyo and other chief in attendance in penultimate meeting… they entered into an accord. At the end, it was agreed by the Olulumo that Akam should stop paying the annual rent of two shillings but curtail their aggressive tendencies. The agreement was sealed with traditional sacrifices to the Olulumo ancestors at eyiyi-illukakang… 698 In spite of the peace agreement, it was not long that traditional vendetta developed with an uneasy peace. By the early 1950"s, the Olulumo people had established cocoa farms at Obara forest area on individual bases. In 1963, the Olulumo established a community farm in the same Obara forest. On discovering the feat of the Olulumo and envious of their achievements, in 1965, the Akam people treacherously decided to interplant their own cocoa seedlings trespassing the boundaries into the already established Olulumo community farm. It was on this farm that the Akam through their son, late P. I. Ejukwa of the defunct Eastern House of Assembly, applied for cocoa subsidy from the Ministry of Agriculture for expansion. This was the beginning of the second phase of the conflict (Memoranda 3). Speaking on the situation, Chief Agara Egbung opined that: It was one Abeng Oyama (who was nicknamed Abeng Abakpa) that discovered the "red soil" at Obara and informed us (Akam) of Olulumo cocoa farms development. This was during the era of cash crop farming and the wealth was enormous… and because of greed and despite what we had gone through in our stay in Ololumo land, we were misled to struggle for a stake at Obara, even when we know we had none (interviewed 06/10/2007).
That singular act of trespass was said to have resulted into violent clashes for ten days. It was through the instrumentality of Chief Ogaji Orem, Chief Enoh Erm and Chief Ogar Eya, the law enforcement agents intervened and quelled the hostilities which led to the signing of another peace agreement on Saturday 26 th June, 1965 (Extract from Minutes 3).
Opinions are divided on the Olulumo -Akam boundary conflict. While, some analysts argue that the identifiable cause underlying the Olulumo -Akam boundary conflict is jurisdictional claims over farm lands; others submit that land is a secondary factor, but rather, it is ethnic rivalry and attempts by each group to exclude the other from participating in the use and management of the resources therein. It could be poignantly argued too that the form and intensity of the conflict varies widely. This is consequent upon the fact that overtime within the context of the indigene-settler relationship, events of the conflict have manifested themselves in diverse ways ranging from misunderstanding and lack of information to breaking the rules of engagements, sabotage and violence, though without total war between the adversaries. More so, the conflict had for some times remained latent. Both Olulumo and Akam have allowed grievances to smolder because of fear, distrust and the humanitarian impact of war and other strategic reasons.

Provocations and Violence
Throughout history, leaders have been faced with the challenges of promoting societal interest and harmony, while at the same time striving for peace and stability in a constantly changing society. The very nature of conflict has evolved overtime from inter-state conflicts arising from aggressive state ambitions to intra-state bloodbaths of ethnic rivalries in the contemporary times (Bonchuk, 2005:4). Between 1990 and 2006, the relationship that subsisted between Olulumo and Akam could better be described as a "marriage of inconvenience." This third phase of the conflict became so vicious to the extent that Akam drew the first blood in the boundary contest at Obara, systematically attempting to expel Olulumo from the Obara protected forest. The Akam, in their tactical stratagem, adopted an approach of annexing any portion of land cleared by an Olulumo man, planted crops would be secretly removed and replaced with a different type of crop (Interview with Ofuka Ogbagu on 23/04/2007). Intimidation, malicious damage, assault, violence and threat to life became the Akam strategic approach to the Obara land. Perhaps, a few recorded case studies would elucidate the above. pounced on Fred Agim-Ogim and left him tied to a tree stem believing he was dead. He was found by a rescue team which was in turn ambushed by yet another group of Akam youths. Five Akam youths were arrested and handed over to the police in the presence of the Chairman, Ikom LGA, Hon. Ebaye Akonjom.
Also, security report on the conflict reveals that since the year 2000, the Akam invite juju priests to the disputed forest to revamp the power of charms and amulets purportedly designed to make them immune to machetes cuts and gun shots. They also invite a great multitude of idle Obubra youths to join them; this is in preparation for war with Olulumo. Despite the fact that, all these efforts have not degenerated into an intense hostility, claims and counterclaims have been made on who owns what form the bank of the Cross River to the Cross River protected forest. Hence, the protracted boundary conflict between these two neighbours had in one way or the other impacted on the socio-economic development of the conflicting communities.

Socio-Economic Implications of the Olulumo -Akam Boundary Conflict
Development can only take place in a calm and peaceful environment, those involve in boundary or territorial claims hardly experience development; but as Otite and Albert aptly submits, the Nigerian social structure is inherently prone to generate conflict. This is because of the ethno-cultural interests, goals and from the political and economic necessities of survival, individuals and as identifiable autonomous social groups struggle for advantages (Otite and Albert, 2001:20). This is very common amongst the rural people especially in their desire to achieve subsistence in the economic order and biophysical realm of nature.
In the light of the above, boundary conflicts hinders the mobilization of both human and material resources for meaningful socio-economic and political development of a people. In most cases, such conflicts have generated spillover effects and instigated refugees" problem, and strained relations between communities. The destructive impact of such conflicts resulted in the burning down of villages in the vicinity, women, children and the aged are killed and captives tortured to death in the most appalling manner (Bonchuk, 1997:1). Inter-community conflicts are sometimes so serious that the dead are not allowed to rest in peace. For instance, in the Cross River and Akwa Ibom boundary conflict at Itu head-bridge popularly called "the Volvo market", graves were exhumed and corpses of aliens buried in the disputed territories relocated for burial elsewhere (Ekoko, 2004:14).
In spite of the above, the Olulumo -Akam conflict is devoid of such destructive impact rather, the Olulumo -Akam boundary conflict is replete with several accusations of trespass, intimidations, harassment, plundering, assault and murder attempts. Often times, the situation had almost degenerated into war but for the timely intervention of security forces and public spirited individuals, these two communities have escaped the cataclysmic impact of war. Nevertheless, there are still some socio-economic implications which can be calibrated in terms of social, economic and political. Economically, Olulumo and Akam have different market days of Saturday and Thursday, respectively which they trade with each other, but, with the dynamics of the conflict, no individual from either community dared into the others" market to sell or to buy anything. Where anybody had a need for anything even if it is sold in these markets, such a person must travel to Four Corners Ikom, Okangha Mkpansi or Ekukunela markets. On both sides of the divide, a great deal of resources in terms of finances that would have been used for socio-economic development was lost to funding the conflict. The Akam community is most affected, who on yearly basis spent a fortune to revamp the powers of charms and amulets in preparation for war. On the Olulumo side, Chief Enya Agbor"s two sons survived a murder attempt in 2006. In interview with him, Chief Agbor explained that he spent over one million naira to save the life of his two sons between 2006 and 2008 (Interviewed on 10/11/2013).

700
Politically, the conflict has led to the disintegration of political alignment. The councillorship seat for Olulumo ward in Ikom Local Government Legislature which Olulumo and Akam share became nonnegotiable. As a result of the conflict, since the 1990s till date, Akam community had been deprived of the opportunity of producing a councilor; Olulumo youths had vowed never to give political support to Akam. This position is strongly emphasized with phobic enthusiasm whenever political discusses are opened. According to Olulumo youth leader, "the greatest mistake the Olulumo made was in 1965, when they allowed Hon. P. I. Ejukwa, an Akam son to be voted into the defunct Eastern House of Assembly. This is because it was Hon Ejukwa who negotiated agricultural subsidy for the Akam with which they had the strength to struggle with Olulumo" (Effa Okongor, interviewed 10/11/2007).
The conflict also created a tensed security situation that besieged both communities and their environs. The fear of being attacked made both communities to be suspicious of every move of the other. Indeed, the Olulumo -Akam boundary relations is replete with so many issues that seem difficult to resolve. In fact, between 1963 and 2006, about six peace commissions have been constituted to find a lasting solution to the Olulumo -Akam boundary problem. Indeed, all the peace commissions have only succeeded in offering palliatives to the problem. It may suffice to present a summary of the report of the 2006 mediation committee which has kept the peace till date.
The report of the mediation committee headed by Ukandi G. A. Ogar was presented to the State Government through the Chairman, Ikom Local Government on February 24 th , 2007. The committee received a total of 12 memoranda, oral evidence from 11 persons, with 24 exhibits were tendered before the committee during sittings and verification visits to the disputed area. The committee had 9 town hall meetings with both Olulumo and Akam communities at different dates and considered the recommendations of the Joint Peace Committee. In order to bring a lasting solution to the conflict, the Mediation Committee concluded thus: 1. Acceptance of the substantive Joint Peace Committee recommendation that the cocoa farms in dispute, left of the Obara stream should without consideration of individual farm owners go Akam community as part of their co-operative farm to eliminate the difficulty in identifying boundaries. 2. Without prejudice to (a) above, the Committee recommended that the farms to right of Obara stream should be owned and maintained by their individual Olulumo owners. However, the parcels of land cleared on the left side of the stream by Olulumo and later annexed by Akam should be considered as undeveloped land and be given to Akam with no strings attached. 3. Similarly, Akam individual subsistence farms to right of Obara were recommended to go to Olulumo with all adjoining parcels of land considered as undeveloped. This is intended to avoid accusations of encroachment arising from artificial boundaries alignment. 4. Whereas in (a) above, the Akam subsistence farms on the left of the Obara stream were to be owned and maintained by their individual owners but must not expand beyond their present sizes. The Committee however, recommended that from the point of intersection between the Obara stream and the Akam co-operative farm, left of the Obara stream, excluding Akam co-operative farm and extending into the Cross River protected forest should be under the exclusive control of Olulumo without any conditional precedence. 5. The Committee further recommended the establishment of a well-coordinated administrative machinery for both communities. In the proposed administrative system, there shall be the Olulumo Traditional Rulers Council at the apex and the Olulumo Clan Council. In between the two, there shall also be the Okwa Council, Village Council of Chiefs and Development Unions for the four clans of Olulumo. There shall be for Akam, a Council of Chiefs and Akam Development Union. Composition and functions are spelt out in the Joint Peace Committee"s report. 6. The Committee recommended that the Clan Councils both communities should liaise and constitute a Joint Land Management Committee (JLMC) of 7 persons: 4 from Olulumo and 3 from Akam to handle all land disputes arising between Olulumo and Akam. The Committee shall have a two-year tenure of office. The JLMC shall monitor and identify land speculators and report to the Clan Councils for further necessary action.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the mediation committee had the objective of finding a lasting solution to the conflict but there were certain shortcomings too that it recorded in the dispatch of its functions. The committee recommendations admittedly suggest Obara to be the natural boundary in the disputed territory but it did not point it out clearly. Most importantly, the committee failed to identify remote and immediate cause of the dispute, neither was it able identify the aggressor. Hence, no punitive measures were recommended. The committee also failed to recommend the creation of a buffer-zone in the event of a recurrence, just like it failed to accommodate intervention mechanisms by the police and other security agencies. The committee emphatically avoided recommending an appropriate methodology of land acquisition in the disputed area.

701
However, even though the committee could not satisfy the expectations of all concerned, the committee should be commended for providing a framework that has kept the peace since 2006. No further hostilities have been recorded since the committee provided that template. Thus, it suggests that both communities are comfortable with the committee"s work. The leaders of both communities also deserve some commendation for their display of maturity in managing the conflict.