Headlines
Trump Has Absolute Immunity for Official Acts, US Supreme Court Rules
The United States Supreme Court has for the first time recognised that former presidents have immunity from prosecution for certain actions taken in office, as it threw out a judicial decision rejecting Donald Trump’s bid to shield himself from criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss.
The court on Monday ruled 6-3 that while former presidents enjoy immunity for actions they take within their constitutional authority, they do not for actions taken in a private capacity.
The ruling marked the first time since the nation’s 18th-century founding that the Supreme Court has declared that former presidents may be shielded from criminal charges in any instance.
The decision will boost Trump’s defence against federal charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 vote, which he lost to President Joe Biden. It could also affect similar state-level election interference charges in Georgia.
Trump was quick to welcome the ruling. “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN,” the former president wrote in a social media post.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the landmark decision on behalf of the court’s six-justice conservative majority. The court’s three liberal justices dissented.
The Supreme Court justices argued that enabling the prosecution of former presidents over their official acts in office could open the door for political retribution and despotism.
“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution,” they wrote.
They stressed that the immunity does not apply just to Trump but “to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”
Three of the six justices who backed the ruling were appointed by Trump himself.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor forcefully rejected the majority’s opinion on Monday, arguing that the ruling effectively legalises abuse of power.
“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” she wrote.
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
Source: Aljazeera
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.
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has lambasted the administration of President Bola Tinubu over insecurity bedeviling the country.
In an interview with News Central, Obasanjo said any government that cannot protect lives and property of its citizens has no basis to exist.
The former leader was reacting to the recent wave of insecurity, which has confronted Nigeria, resulting in the killing of several citizens and abduction of others.
“Let me tell you, the government that cannot give security of life and property of its citizen has no right of existence.
“The elected members of our National Assembly have no right to fix their own salary and their own emolument.
“It’s not in our constitution for them to do that. It’s the revenue mobilization and allocation commission that should do it,” he said.
The Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) has offered its presidential ticket to Peter Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso ahead of the 2027 elections, signaling intensifying efforts to forge a united opposition as key political deadlines approach.
In a post on X on Sunday, the party indicated a two-week window for both politicians, currently linked to the African Democratic Congress (ADC), to defect and secure its platform’s presidential ticket.
“All we need right now. Just all we need. Two weeks to deadline,” the NDC said, accompanying the message with an image of Obi and Kwankwaso and the caption: “Nigeria will be OK.”
The development comes amid renewed calls for opposition consolidation ahead of the next general elections. Supporters of both men recently launched the “OK Movement”, aimed at mobilising support for a possible joint ticket.
Organisers of the movement have begun setting up national, zonal and State structures, suggesting early groundwork for a broader political alliance.
However, the ADC is currently grappling with internal divisions that could affect its participation in the elections. The party is facing a leadership crisis, with competing factions contesting control of its structure.
The dispute is now before the Supreme Court of Nigeria, which has reserved judgment in an appeal arising from the leadership tussle.
The uncertainty comes as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) maintains its timetable for the 2027 polls, setting May 30, 2026, as the deadline for political parties to submit membership registers and nominate candidates.
Opposition parties, including factions of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) and the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), have called for an extension of the timeline, arguing that the schedule is too tight given ongoing internal restructuring and legal disputes.
The NDC’s offer highlights the shifting dynamics within Nigeria’s opposition landscape, where alliances remain fluid and negotiations are ongoing.
Both Obi and Kwankwaso are influential political figures with significant regional support bases, and any alignment between them could reshape the balance of power ahead of the elections.
INEC has yet to indicate whether it will adjust its timetable, as preparations for the 2027 general elections continue to gather momentum.
