The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in Cross River State, Ededem C. Ani, has denied involvement in the reported abduction and detention of Chief Maurice Omin Iso, the traditional chief of Esuku-Otu, Ikot Ansa, Calabar, on December 21, 2024, from his home.
The wife of the detained monarch has alleged that her husband’s life is under threat.
Iso is allegedly blocking reported attempts by interested parties to seize communal lands, part of which the government had earlier acquired. He is reported to have won court cases against the government involving land and chieftaincy issues.
Lead counsel, Chief Okoi Obono-Obla, to Chief Iso, has insisted that the Attorney General and commissioner knows about the arrest and detention of his client.
He further insisted that he spoke with the Attorney General, who agreed that Iso would soon be released, maintaining that he has the MTN transcript of the conversation.
Iso, allegedly clamped into a detention facility belonging to the DSS, filed an action for the enforcement of his fundamental rights to a fair hearing, personal liberty, and freedom of movement in the Federal High Court Calabar.
In Case No. FHC/CA/CS/3/2025, Justice Ifeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court Calabar had ordered the Department of State Security, DSS, and the Attorney General to produce Iso in court on January 15, 2025.
On the said January 15, DSS denied having him, claiming he was not a security threat and that they had no interest in him.
The Attorney General, in a statement released Thursday night, claimed that various media reports linking him and DSS to the incident were false and baseless.
According to him, the media reports are an attempt to denigrate his good name and reputation.
Ani argued that there was no record of any judgments in favour of Chief Maurice Omin Iso against the Cross River State Government “involving land or chieftaincy issues.”
He asked that if Iso was abducted and detained on December 21, how was he able to show up at Zone Six for questioning on December 23, 2024?
“Arresting or detaining a judgment creditor does not in any way affect the validity of a judgment, and would not only be illegal but also unlawful and futile,” he said.
