Headlines
UK’s Opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch Backs Trump on Venezuela Invasion, Maduro’s Removal
United Kingdom’s Conservative Party leader, Kemi Badenoch, has said that the United States’ military action to remove Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro was the right decision on moral grounds, even though the legal basis for the operation remains unclear.
Speaking to the BBC, Badenoch said she does not understand the legal justification for United States President Donald Trump’s decision to remove Maduro but described the Venezuelan leader as presiding over a “brutal regime,” adding that she is “glad he’s gone.”
She, however, warned that the operation raised serious concerns about the rules-based international order.
The UK government has so far avoided directly criticising the US action or stating whether it breached international law, instead maintaining that Maduro was an “illegitimate president.”
However, several Labour MPs and opposition parties, including the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and the SNP, have called on the government to condemn the operation and describe it as illegal.
Badenoch, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, described the US intervention as “extraordinary” but said she understood why it was carried out.
“Where the legal certainty is not yet clear, morally, I do think it was the right thing to do,” she said.
The Conservative leader, who spent part of her childhood in Nigeria before returning to the UK at the age of 16, said her upbringing under military rule shaped her views on authoritarian leadership.
“I grew up under a military dictatorship, so I know what it’s like to have someone like Maduro in charge.”
She also distinguished the situation in Venezuela from President Trump’s comments on Greenland, saying it was right to oppose any US intervention there.
“There is a big difference between democratic states” and the “gangster state in Venezuela”.
“What happens in Greenland is up to Denmark and the people of Greenland,” she added.
Trump has in recent days renewed his threats to annex Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory with a strategic location and rich mineral resources, arguing that the move is necessary for US national security. The UK has issued a joint statement alongside France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Denmark, insisting that decisions concerning Greenland’s future rest solely with Denmark and the people of Greenland.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the government’s stance on Greenland differed from Venezuela because Denmark is a member of NATO and questioning Greenland’s future was not in the UK’s national security interests. He also defended the prime minister’s response to developments in Venezuela, saying it was guided by national interest and concern for the Venezuelan people.
“I appreciate there are others who have been more strident and have been more critical of the United States,” he said.
“The prime minister has a different responsibility, and he is choosing his words carefully and wisely to try and influence how events unfold from here on.”
Critics of the government’s approach, including Labour MP Emily Thornberry, chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, have argued that the US action risks emboldening Russia and China and that the UK should clearly state that the operation breached international law.
In a statement to the House of Commons on Monday evening, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said she had reminded US Secretary of State Marco Rubio of his obligations under international law, while reiterating that it was for the US to set out the legal basis for its actions.
Maduro and his wife were seized in Caracas on Saturday during a US military operation that also included strikes on military bases across the country. They were taken to New York, where they have been charged with weapons and drug-related offences over allegations that they enriched themselves through a violent crime ring smuggling cocaine into the US.
Maduro has long rejected the allegations as a pretext to force him from power, and both he and his wife have pleaded not guilty to the charges. Trump has vowed to “run the country” until a “proper” transition of power takes place, with Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez sworn in as interim president
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.
