Enugu State has officially withdrawn from a high-profile lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and guidelines set by the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU). This withdrawal places Enugu as the sixth state to exit the lawsuit, which was initially filed by the Kogi State Government and later joined by 18 other states.

The withdrawal comes as a series of states reconsider their involvement in the case, which questions the legal foundation of the EFCC and the NFIU’s regulatory guidelines. Anambra, Adamawa, and Ebonyi were the first states to formally exit, doing so before a seven-member Supreme Court panel on October 22. Soon after, Benue and Jigawa also filed withdrawal applications on October 23 and October 24, respectively.

Benue State’s departure was marked by controversy as its governor, Rev. Fr. Hyacinth Alia, suspended the state’s Attorney General, Fidelis Mnyim, citing a lack of prior notification about joining the lawsuit. Additionally, the Ogun State government clarified that its participation was limited to seeking an interpretation of NFIU’s cash withdrawal guidelines, rather than challenging the EFCC’s constitutionality.

ALSO READ: Labour Partys Agbo Declared Winner of Enugu Constituency Seat Following Court Ruling

According to an application submitted by Enugu State’s Attorney General, Kingsley Udeh, and received by the Supreme Court on October 24, the state’s decision to withdraw reflects its reconsidered stance on the ongoing legal battle. The document, titled “Notice of the 6th Defendant’s Withdrawal,” officially marks Enugu’s exit from the suit, leaving only 13 states to continue pursuing the matter.

The states involved in this suit argue that the EFCC Act was enacted in contravention of Nigeria’s constitutional requirements. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Joseph Nwobike vs. the Federal Republic of Nigeria, they contend that the United Nations Convention against Corruption, on which the EFCC’s establishment is based, was not lawfully adopted by the majority of state houses of assembly as required by Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution. Therefore, they argue, any entity founded on these grounds lacks legal standing, as it was not properly ratified at the state level.

As the Supreme Court reviews the arguments presented, it has reserved judgment to a later date. This evolving case continues to spotlight complex issues surrounding federal authority, state autonomy, and the processes governing Nigeria’s anti-corruption frameworks.