admin
Enugu State, the sixth plaintiff in the suit filed by several states contesting the laws that established the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit Guidelines, has withdrawn its case before the Supreme Court.
Enugu’s withdrawal makes it the sixth state to back out of the suit. The first three states to withdraw were Anambra (the ninth plaintiff), Adamawa (the sixteenth plaintiff), and Ebonyi (the eighteenth plaintiff). All three states withdrew their suits before the seven-member panel of justices on October 22, the day of the hearing.
Subsequently, Benue and Jigawa filed separate applications for withdrawal. Benue applied for withdrawal on October 23, while Jigawa filed on October 24.
The Attorney General of Enugu State, Kingsley Udeh, in an application addressed to the Supreme Court, announced the state’s decision to discontinue its participation in the suit.
The application was officially received by the apex court on October 24, 2024.
Enugu’s withdrawal was formalised in a suit marked SC/CV/178/2023, titled “Notice of 6th Defendant’s (Attorney General of Enugu State) Withdrawal from this Suit Brought Under Order 4 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Court and Under the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Court.”
The notice stated, “Take Notice that the 6th Plaintiff (Attorney General of Enugu State) intends and doth hereby withdraw his suit against the defendant (Attorney General of the Federation) in the above-mentioned suit.”
The application was signed by the Attorney General of the state, Kingsley Udeh.
The Kogi State government initially filed the suit against the EFCC in 2023, with 18 other states, including Enugu, later joining the case. With the withdrawal of six states, only 13 states remain to pursue the matter to its conclusion.
The states argue that the Supreme Court, in Joseph Nwobike vs. the Federal Republic of Nigeria, held that the United Nations Convention Against Corruption was incorporated into the EFCC Establishment Act and that in enacting this law in 2004, the provisions of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) were not followed.
The plaintiffs also claim that when incorporating a convention into Nigerian law, the provisions of Section 12 must be adhered to.
According to the plaintiffs, the Constitution requires that a majority of state Houses of Assembly must agree to the adoption of the convention before laws like the EFCC Act can be passed, which, they argue, was never done.
The states’ argument in their current suit, which they assert has been corroborated by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, is that the law, as enacted, cannot be applied to states that did not approve it, in line with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.
Therefore, they contend that any institution established under such circumstances should be deemed illegal
