# Tags

SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS COURT OF APPEAL’S JUDGMENT ON LABOUR PARTY CHAIRMANSHIP, UPHOLDS NENADI USMAN’S APPEAL

The Supreme Court has unanimously nullified the Court of Appeal’s judgment recognizing Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the Labour Party (LP). A five-member panel of the apex court ruled on Friday that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to declare Abure as party chairman, emphasizing that the dispute involved internal leadership matters beyond judicial intervention. In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal filed by Senator Nenadi Usman and another petitioner, describing it as “meritorious.” The court further dismissed a cross-appeal by Abure’s faction, declaring it “lacking in merit.” Justice Tijjani Abubakar, delivering the lead judgment, stated, “Courts do not have the jurisdiction to determine internal party leadership issues. The Court of Appeal erred in assuming authority over a purely domestic affair of the Labour Party.” The ruling effectively invalidates Abure’s recognition by the appellate court, reigniting debates over the LP’s leadership structure. The Supreme Court reiterated that political parties must resolve such conflicts through internal mechanisms, barring external legal interference. “This decision reaffirms the principle of non-interference in political parties’ internal affairs,” the judgment read. Abure’s camp expressed disappointment, vowing to explore “all legitimate means” to reclaim the position, while Senator Usman hailed the verdict as a “victory for party democracy and the rule of law.” The Labour Party has yet to issue an official statement on the development. Legal analysts describe the judgment as a landmark precedent limiting judicial overreach into political party governance.

SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS LUCKY AIYEDATIWA’S QUALIFICATION FOR ONDO GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Agboola Ajayi, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the Ondo governorship election, challenging the qualification of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa. A five-member panel of the Apex Court affirmed Aiyedatiwa’s candidacy, stating that Ajayi lacks the legal rights to challenge the choice of candidate of another political party. Aiyedatiwa, who scored 366,781 votes, winning in all 18 local government areas of the state, was declared the winner of the November 16, 2024, election. Ajayi, who polled 117,845 votes, had alleged forgery, impersonation, and false identity against Aiyedatiwa’s deputy, Olayide Adelami. However, the Supreme Court held that the initial case filed at the Federal High Court was done beyond the 14-day period within which to do so. The court awarded a cost of N2 million against Ajayi in favor of the four respondents in the appeal, amounting to N8 million in total. Both the Federal High Court and the Appeal Court Akure Division had previously dismissed the case against Aiyedatiwa’s candidacy. The Supreme Court’s decision has put an end to the controversy surrounding Aiyedatiwa’s qualification for the governorship election.

ANYANWU’S BID TO REVERSE REMOVAL AS PDP NATIONAL SECRETARY HITS THE ROCKS

The Supreme Court has dismissed an application filed by Samuel Anyanwu, seeking to stay the execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeal that removed him as the National Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). In a dramatic turn of events, Anyanwu applied for withdrawal of the request, which was subsequently dismissed by Justice Musa Awani Aba-Aji. The Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal in Enugu had earlier removed Anyanwu as PDP National Secretary in concurrent judgments. The Court of Appeal upheld Chief Sunday Ude-Okoye as the substantive National Secretary of the PDP, citing Anyanwu’s violation of the party’s constitution by contesting the governorship election in Imo State while laying claim to the national secretary position. Anyanwu had approached the Supreme Court in February, seeking to set aside the judgments of the lower courts and recognize him as the authentic National Secretary of the PDP. However, he surprisingly withdrew his application on Monday, prompting the Supreme Court to dismiss the request. The hearing in the substantive matter is ongoing before a five-man panel of justices headed by Justice Aba-Aji.

SUPREME COURT REJECTS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S REQUEST TO FREEZE FOREIGN AID

In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration’s request to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress frozen. The ruling, although not specifying when the funds must be released, allows lower courts to proceed with enforcing the release of the aid. The majority opinion, supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, noted that the lower courts should “clarify what obligations the government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order” since the deadline to spend the money had already passed. Justice Samuel Alito, one of the four conservative justices who dissented, expressed strong opposition to the ruling, calling it “stunning.” Alito argued that a federal court should not overstep its authority by enforcing the release of the funds. The case revolves around billions in foreign aid allocated by Congress through the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The Trump administration froze the funds in January, citing efforts to cut spending and realign foreign aid with its policy agenda. Nonprofit groups that rely on the funding for global health and other programs challenged the administration’s move, arguing that it usurped Congress’s power to control government spending and violated federal law. The Supreme Court’s decision has been hailed by Democrats as a reaffirmation of congressional authority over federal spending. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York stated, “That money had already been appropriated, things were already in action, and so I think the Supreme Court ruled the right way, and now the administration needs to unfreeze them and allow those contractors and the work to be done”.

SUPREME COURT SACKS RIVERS STATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHAIRMEN, BARS STATE FROM RECEIVING ALLOCATIONS

The Supreme Court has declared the local government election conducted on October 5, 2024, in Rivers State invalid due to gross violations of the Electoral Act. In a judgment delivered by Justice Jamilu Tukur, the court declared the election invalid, stating that the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission continued voter registration even after announcing an election date, which is a clear violation of the Electoral Act and guidelines. Justice Tukur said, “The action of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission is declared void for lack of substantial compliance to the Electoral Act and guidelines.” The court held that processes leading to the conduct of a local government election were abridged in clear violation of Section 150 of the Electoral Act. In another judgment, the Supreme Court barred the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the accountant-general of the federation from releasing statutory monthly allocations to Rivers State until the state government complies with a court order. The court also ordered the Martins Amaewhule-led faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly and other elected members of the house to resume sitting. The Amaewhule-led faction of the Rivers Assembly is loyal to Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The court’s decision is seen as a significant blow to the Rivers State government, which has been embroiled in a power struggle between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and former Governor Nyesom Wike.

HAWAII SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS IN INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT CASE

The Hawaii Supreme Court has made a landmark ruling, determining that state laws controlling health care insurance reimbursement also apply to casualty and property insurance. This decision limits companies’ ability to pursue independent legal action against those held liable. Singleton According to the ruling, companies will not be able to pursue reimbursement from third parties without specific policy provisions. Gerald Singleton, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, expressed his satisfaction with the outcome, stating, “Now the settlement can take the next step forward.” However, Singleton also mentioned that they are still trying to understand the full implications of the ruling.

SUPREME COURT DISMISSES GOV FUBARA’S SUIT AGAINST PRO-WIKE 27 RIVERS LAWMAKERS

The Supreme Court has dismissed a suit filed by Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, seeking to remove 27 members of the State House of Assembly for allegedly defecting from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). The court’s decision follows the withdrawal of the appeal by Fubara’s lead counsel, Yusuf Ali SAN, who cited that “events have overtaken” the suit. Justice Musa Uwani-Aba-Aji delivered the ruling, dismissing the suit after Fubara’s counsel withdrew the appeal. The Rivers State House of Assembly and its Speaker, Martin Amaewhule, represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, did not oppose the withdrawal but demanded an outright dismissal of the suit. The court agreed, awarding N4 million against Fubara to be paid to the House of Assembly and Amaewhule. According to Ken Njemanze, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, the dismissal clears the way for the 27 lawmakers to take over the House of Assembly fully. Njemanze stated that all steps taken by Fubara in the absence of the 27 lawmakers, including the presentation of the 2024 and 2025 budgets to only three lawmakers, have become null and void. This development comes after the Court of Appeal dismissed Fubara’s appeal on the same matter on October 10, 2024. The Federal High Court in Abuja had also nullified the passage of Rivers State’s N800 billion 2024 budget by four members of the House of Assembly on January 22, 2024.

BREAKING: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS FEDERAL LAW BANNING TIKTOK UNLESS SOLD BY CHINESE PARENT COMPANY

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law banning TikTok in the United States unless its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, sells the app. The law, which takes effect on Sunday, prohibits app stores from offering TikTok and internet hosting services from hosting the app unless a sale is made to an approved buyer. The decision comes amid concerns over national security risks posed by TikTok’s ties to China. The US government has expressed concerns that TikTok collects vast amounts of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. TikTok has denied that it could be used as a tool of Beijing, and pointed out that the US has not presented evidence that China has attempted to manipulate content on its US platform or gather American user data through TikTok. The law was passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden in April. A three-judge panel upheld the law in December, prompting TikTok’s quick appeal to the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar defended the law at the Supreme Court, saying that having the law take effect “might be just the jolt” ByteDance needs to reconsider its position. ByteDance has said it won’t sell, but some investors, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire businessman Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in acquiring TikTok’s US assets. The decision has significant implications for TikTok’s 170 million users in the US, who will no longer be able to download the app or receive updates once the law takes effect. However, experts say that existing users will still be able to use the app, at least for now. SOURCE: AP