Connect with us

Headlines

Federal Reserve Boss, Lisa Cook, Dares Trump over Sack

Published

11 months ago

on

President Donald Trump, on Monday, removed Dr. Lisa D. Cook from her position on the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve, citing alleged false statements on mortgage documents and loss of public trust.

Cooks was appointed by then-President Joe Biden in 2022. She is the first African American woman to serve in the role.

In a formal letter dated August 25, 2025, Trump invoked his authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, declaring Cook’s removal “effective immediately.”

According to the letter, the decision followed a criminal referral submitted on August 15, 2025, by William J. Pulte, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

The referral alleged that Cook signed conflicting mortgage agreements—one in Michigan and another in Georgia—each claiming to be for her primary residence within overlapping timeframes.

Trump argued that the alleged actions demonstrated gross negligence in financial transactions and undermined Cook’s integrity and competence as a financial regulator.

The statement read: “Pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended, you are hereby removed from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, effective immediately.

“The Federal Reserve Act provides that you may be removed, at my discretion, for cause. See 12 U.S.C. § 242. I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position.

“As set forth in the Criminal Referral dated August 15, 2025, from Mr. William J. Pulte, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to Ms. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States (“Criminal Referral”) (attached to this letter as Exhibit A), there is sufficient reason to believe you may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements.

“For example, as detailed in the Criminal Referral, you signed one document attesting that a property in Michigan would be your primary residence for the next year. Two weeks later, you signed another document for a property in Georgia stating that it would be your primary residence for the next year. It is inconceivable that you were not aware of your first commitment when making the second. It is impossible that you intended to honor both.”

“The executive power of the United States is vested in me as President and, as President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. I have determined that faithfully executing the law requires your immediate removal from office,” the statement added.

But Cook insisted the president lacked the authority to dismiss her and vowed not to resign, setting the stage for what could become a landmark legal battle over presidential power and the Federal Reserve’s independence.

“President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” Cook said. “I will not resign. I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headlines

Spain Beat France 2-0 to Reach 2026 World Cup Final

Published

11 hours ago

on

July 15, 2026

By

Spain booked their place in the 2026 FIFA World Cup final with a 2-0 victory over France in Tuesday’s semi-final in Arlington, Texas.

Mikel Oyarzabal opened the scoring from the penalty spot after Lucas Digne fouled Lamine Yamal, before Pedro Porro doubled La Roja’s advantage in the second half following a flowing move orchestrated by Dani Olmo.

Oyarzabal converted from the spot in the 22nd minute after referee Ivan Barton awarded Spain a penalty for Digne’s challenge on Yamal.

Punch Online reports that this is Oyarzabal’s fifth goal of the tournament and the first time either side had trailed during their World Cup campaign.

Spain then tightened their grip on the contest when Porro finished off a slick passing move in the 58th minute to leave France chasing the game.

The victory sends Spain into Sunday’s World Cup final, where they will face the winners of Wednesday’s second semi-final between England and Argentina.

France, who were seeking a third consecutive World Cup final appearance, struggled to break down Spain’s disciplined defence as Luis de la Fuente’s side maintained their impressive run to the tournament’s showpiece match.

Spain outplay France, says FIFA

A post match report obtained from the FIFA website after the game reported that La Roja outplayed France.

“Spain frustrated France at one end and punished them at the other to deservedly win their FIFA World Cup 2026™ semi-final at Dallas Stadium.

The post match report stated, “The advantage was amplified when Porro played a palatial one-two with Dani Olmo, taking the return impeccably and burying the ball in the bottom corner.

“France, with Desire Doue and Rayan Cherki on, pushed to get back into a game, but goalkeeper Unai Simon acted astutely as a sweeper-keeper and Marc Cucurella made an excellent challenge on Mbappe.”

Meanwhile, Mbappe could still pick something from the tournament the football body teased.

“The final whistle sparked ecstasy for the Spaniards and agony for the French. Didier Deschamps’ team will have a shot at bronze on Saturday, when Mbappe could boost his hopes for another adidas Golden Boot,” it concluded.

Continue Reading

Headlines

Atiku Accuses INEC of Aiding Tinubu’s Alleged One-party State Agenda

Published

1 day ago

on

July 14, 2026

By

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of aiding President Bola Tinubu’s agenda to weaken opposition parties ahead of the 2027 polls by granting access to a factional leader of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

In a statement issued Monday by the Atiku Media Office, Atiku alleged that INEC’s actions amounted to partisanship and a violation of the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

The statement referenced a July 11, 2026 claim by Nafiu Bala Gombe, who “parades himself as National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC)”, that he had succeeded in uploading the names of his candidates on INEC’s portal.

According to Atiku’s office, uploading candidates is part of the process for the 2027 General Elections, made possible by access codes granted to political parties in line with INEC guidelines.

“Meanwhile, INEC has been mum, and has not denied or confirmed this obvious contradiction to the law and its own guidelines,” the statement said.

Atiku’s team argued that by granting an access code to Bala Gombe, INEC was recognizing a “pretender” despite having “since validated the chairmanship of the Sen. David Mark-led exco.”

“By granting access code to Bala Gombe, a pretender, laying claims to the chairmanship of the ADC, though the law is not on his side and INEC has since validated the chairmanship of the Sen. David Mark-led exco, the electoral umpire is once again manifesting its partisanship,” the statement noted.

It drew parallels with a past incident under Prof. Joash Amupitan-led INEC, alleging the commission “illegally removed the names of the duly recognised ADC exco following the judicial rascality of Justice Lifu in ignoring a superior ruling of an appellate court.”

The statement described the “so-called ‘successful’ uploading of ‘candidates’ by Nafiu Bala Gombe” as lacking legal basis.

“Nafiu Bala Gombe is not recognised as ADC Chairman. Mark is duly recognised. Can there be two recognised Chairmen of a political party? Possibly only in an INEC led by Amupitan. Can INEC grant two access codes to a political party? Certainly not,” it added.

Atiku’s office warned that the development “is a recipe for crisis and confirms that Prof Joash Amupitan was appointed to enable the weakening of the opposition parties by creating crisis even where none exists.”

Citing the law, the statement noted that Section 222 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that candidates must emerge through recognized party primaries supervised by INEC, while Section 84 of the Electoral Act 2022 requires parties to submit only one validly nominated candidate per elective office.

“Nafiu Bala Gombe and his criminal gang did not conduct any primaries. The INEC granting of access code to Nafiu Bala Gombe is unconstitutional and unlawful. The only submitted candidates known to the law are those of David Mark. Any parallel submission such as Nafiu Bala Gombe’s is null and void,” it said.

The statement called on the INEC Chairman to stop “fomenting crisis in the ADC and the other opposition parties and by so doing helping President Bola Tinubu’s agenda of total State capture.”

Continue Reading

Headlines

Appeal Court Bars David Mark-led EXCO from Parading Self As ADC Leaders

Published

2 days ago

on

July 13, 2026

By

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Monday affirmed the judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The appellate court decision was a split of two-to-one.

A three-member panel of the appellate court, in a lead verdict delivered by Justice Okon Abang, said it found no reason to set aside the restraining order the Federal High Court in Abuja had issued against the Mark-led ADC on April 29.

It further upheld the order of trial Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executives.

The appellate court concurred that responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees, not with the national leadership.

While Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo gave the majority verdict barring the electoral body from acknowledging the outcome of congresses held by the Mark-led leadership of the ADC, the head of the appellate court’s panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, gave a dissenting judgment.

In his minority decision, Justice Mohammed held that the case that precipitated the restraining order bordered on a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party.

He held that the trial court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal judgment may jeopardise the presidential candidacies of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other candidates who emerged through the national congress organised by the Mark-led faction of the ADC, ahead of the 2027 general elections.

It will be recalled that the High Court had, in its judgment, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.

The judgment followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, lodged before the court by aggrieved members of the ADC.

Those behind the suit are Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, who told the court that they sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Listed as defendants in the matter are the ADC; Sen. David Mark; Sen. Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; and Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee); and INEC.

The plaintiffs had, among other things, challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

They challenged the validity of appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee, arguing that planned state congresses slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.

It was further the position of the plaintiffs that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.

While agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Senator Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

The court held that the claims brought before it by the plaintiffs were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing an alleged breach of constitutional and statutory provisions.

It held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, adding that Article 23 of the ADC Constitution also provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.

Justice Abdulmalik stressed that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they nonetheless intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Political commentary articles

She held that evidence before the court established that the tenure of the state executive committees of the ADC remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.

The court stressed that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, and it accordingly nullified any process initiated by the Senator Mark-led caretaker leadership.

Earlier, the court dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction to entertain it.

It held that the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertained to the affairs of INEC and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The court also waved aside the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before instituting the action.

It held that the plaintiffs had the requisite locus standi (legal right) to file the suit.

The appellate court, while upholding the restraining order, said it had a duty to intervene so as to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

It cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in the leadership crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to hold that the ADC case could not be classified as a domestic affair of a political party.

“Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention,” Justice Abang added in the majority judgment.

Consequently, the panel dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, which the ADC lodged in order to set aside the high court judgment.

It held that congresses and the national convention conducted by the Mark-led ADC amounted to a nullity as they were held in disobedience to a subsisting order that the High Court made on April 14.

Having resolved the case against the ADC, the appellate court awarded a cost of N10million against the party.

Shortly after the judgment, the ADC, which was represented by its National Welfare Secretary, Mr Nkem Ukandu, said the party would take the case before the Supreme Court.

Continue Reading