Headlines
Trump Finally Loses Bid to Halt Hush Money Sentencing
The US Supreme Court, on Thursday, denied a last-minute bid by President-elect Donald Trump to halt sentencing after his conviction in the hush-money case.
The top court, which includes three justices appointed by Trump, rejected his emergency application seeking to block Friday’s sentencing by a 5-4 vote.
The court, in a brief unsigned order, said the “burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial” and noted that Trump will be allowed to attend virtually.
The court also noted that Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the hush money case, has already said he plans to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge,” which does not carry any jail time, fine or probation.
Trump is to be sentenced in Manhattan at 9:30 am (1430 GMT) on Friday after being convicted by a New York jury in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.
The 78-year-old Trump, who is to be inaugurated on January 20, is the first former president to be convicted of a crime and will be the first convicted felon to serve in the White House.
In a post on Truth Social following the Supreme Court decision, Trump thanked the court for “trying to remedy the great injustice done to me” and lashed out at Merchan, calling him a “highly political and corrupt judge.”
“I am innocent of all of the Judge’s made-up, fake charges,” he said, adding that he will continue to pursue appeals of the guilty verdict in the hush money case.
Trump filed an emergency application with the nine-member Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking to block his sentencing.
Four conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — were in favour of granting Trump’s request.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also conservatives, joined the court’s three liberal justices in rejecting the president-elect’s effort.
Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed by Trump.
Grave injustice
Trump’s lawyers made several legal maneuvers in an effort to fend off sentencing, arguing that it would be a “grave injustice” and harm “the institution of the presidency and the operations of the federal government.”
Trump’s attorneys also claimed that the immunity from prosecution granted to a sitting president should be extended to a president-elect.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg rejected their arguments in his response on Thursday, saying Trump was a private citizen when he was “charged, tried, and convicted.”
“Defendant makes the unprecedented claim that the temporary presidential immunity he will possess in the future fully immunizes him now, weeks before he even takes the oath of office,” he said.
Bragg also said the Supreme Court “lacks jurisdiction over a state court’s management of an ongoing criminal trial” and preventing sentencing would be an “extraordinary step” by the top court.
In the order allowing sentencing to go ahead, the Supreme Court said Trump can still appeal his conviction through the New York state courts.
Merchan said last week that he was leaning towards giving Trump an unconditional discharge that would not carry jail time. He also agreed to allow the president-elect to attend Friday’s sentencing virtually instead of in person.
Trump potentially faced up to four years in prison, but legal experts — even before he won the November presidential election — did not expect Merchan to incarcerate him.
Trump was certified as the winner of the 2024 presidential election on Monday, four years after his supporters rioted at the US Capitol as he sought to overturn his 2020 defeat.
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
