NEWS
JUST IN: Colorado S’Court Removes Trump From 2024 US Ballot
In a defining ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court has disqualified former United States of America’s President, Donald Trump from serving as POTUS, and cannot appear on the primary ballot in Colorado.
In the ruling on Tuesday, the Court cited Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.
The historic 4-3 ruling is likely to be contested in other jurisdictions, and probably taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.
By the ruling, Trump became the first presidential candidate deemed ineligible for the White House under a rarely used constitutional provision that bars officials who had engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.
Though the pronouncement of the court is binding only to Colorado’s March 5 Republican primary but it could affect Trump’s status in the state for the November 5 general election.
Nonpartisan U.S. election forecasters view Colorado as safely Democratic, meaning that President Joe Biden will likely carry the state regardless of Trump’s fate there, Reuters reports.
It was gathered that Trump had vowed to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Colorado court said it would delay the effect of its decision until at least January 4, 2024, to allow him exercise his right for an appeal.
In addition, the Colorado court ruling sets the stage for the Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three Trump appointees, to consider whether Trump is eligible to serve another term as president.
The lawsuit is viewed as a test case for a wider effort to disqualify Trump from state ballots under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted after the U.S. Civil War to keep supporters of the confederacy from serving in the government.
In the views of the Colorado court the U.S. Constitution bars Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2024, from appearing on the ballot because of his role in instigating violence at the Capitol as lawmakers met to certify the results of the 2020 election.
The court’s majority acknowledged the decision was “uncharted territory.”
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority justices wrote.
“We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach,” they added.
Trump’s campaign called the court decision “undemocratic.”
“The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court,” a spokesperson from the Trump campaign said.
The decision reverses a ruling by a lower court judge who found Trump engaged in insurrection by inciting his supporters to violence, but concluded that, as president, Trump was not an “officer of the United States” who could be disqualified under the amendment.
The Biden campaign declined to comment.
Involvement of Colorado Electorte
The case was brought by a group of Colorado voters, aided by the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who argued that Trump should be disqualified for inciting his supporters to attack the Capitol in a failed attempt to obstruct the transfer of presidential power to Biden after the 2020 election.
President, CREW, Noah Bookbinder said in a statement that the court’s decision is “not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country.”
One of the things that make the ruling of the Colorado court of interest to political watchers is that courts had rejected several lawsuits seeking to keep Trump off the primary ballot in other states.
Minnesota’s top court rebuffed an effort to disqualify Trump from the Republican primary in that state, but did not rule on his overall eligibility to serve as president.
Some advocates had hoped the Colorado case would boost the overall disqualification effort and potentially put the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Trump’s campaign has condemned 14th Amendment challenges as an attempt to deny millions of voters their preferred choice for president.
Trump’s lawyers argued that his speech to supporters on the day of the riot was protected by his right to free speech, adding that the constitutional amendment does not apply to U.S. presidents and that Congress would need to vote to disqualify a candidate.
Interestingly, three Colorado Supreme Court justices dissented from Tuesday’s ruling.
One of the dissenting justices, Carlos Samour, said in a lengthy opinion that a lawsuit is not a fair mechanism for determining Trump’s eligibility for the ballot because it deprives him of his right to due process, noting that a jury has not convicted him of insurrection.
“Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past – dare I say, engaged in insurrection – there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office,” Samour said.
The President of the African School of Governance, Kingsley Chiedu Moghalu has admonished state actors against resorting to brutal force in the bid to muscle out separatist agitators.
In the aftermath of Mazi Simon Ekpa, the Finland based Biafran nationalist agitator being caught in legal web and the Nigerian government moving swiftly to seek his repatriation, the former deputy governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has cautioned that ‘We either fix our problems, or our problems will eventually “fix” us. No alternative to a renegotiated union.’
ALSO READ: Finnish Police Arrest Simon Ekpa Over Terror-Related Allegations
The political economist, while expressing his hope in Nigeria, made it clear that “hope is not a strategy”.
He bared his mind in a series of posts on his verified handle on micro-blogging site, X on Friday.
Moghalu wrote, “Despite sustained contemporary difficulties, I am hopeful about Nigeria. But hope is not a strategy. We need to improve state capacity for effective governance.
“We either fix our problems, or our problems will eventually “fix” us. No alternative to a renegotiated union.
“We must learn to be honest with ourselves and address the root causes of our problems. Why ignore them, when the problem is actually quite solvable? The problem with continuing with this approach is that when the danger crystallizes, those who thought they were benefiting from
Former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar has criticized the federal government’s plan to secure an additional N1.7 trillion loan through Eurobonds to cover a shortfall in the 2024 budget, describing the borrowing as unsustainable and harmful to Nigeria’s economy.
In a statement shared on Thursday via his X (formerly Twitter) handle, Atiku accused the Bola Tinubu-led administration of burdening Nigerians with debt while failing to provide clear answers about the country’s fiscal challenges.
READ ALSO: CSR: Dangote Cement Fuels Education With Support Projects At Lagos Schools
He also faulted the National Assembly for enabling what he called a “voracious appetite” for loans.
The former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate expressed alarm over a recent World Bank report ranking Nigeria as the third most indebted country to the International Development Association (IDA), calling the development troubling.
“The recent report released by the World Bank, showing Nigeria as the third most indebted country to the International Development Association (IDA), is very concerning,” Atiku stated.
He raised further concerns about the government’s decision to benchmark the proposed loan at an exchange rate of 1 USD to N800, despite the Central Bank of Nigeria’s official rate being over N1,600.
“What makes this particular loan proposal even more concerning is that it is benchmarked at the exchange rate of 1 USD to N800, whereas the current exchange rate from the Central Bank of Nigeria stands at over N1,600 to 1 USD,” he said.
Atiku questioned the need for additional borrowing, given the government’s earlier claims of record-high revenue collection.
“In July this year, Tinubu boasted that the FIRS and Customs under his watch had collected all-time high revenues to finance the budget. Why are they still borrowing?” he said
He accused the government of a lack of transparency, describing the borrowing spree as detrimental to Nigerians already struggling under economic hardship.
“There is something that they are not telling Nigerians, even as they are being crushed by a combination of their failed trial-and-error policies and loan rackets.”
Atiku also referenced a report by BudgIT, a budget monitoring group, which criticized the 2024 budget for its inefficiencies.
He alleged that corruption, rather than infrastructure or development needs, was driving the government’s borrowing decisions.
“These loans are powered by corruption and not for infrastructure and development needs. This voracious appetite for humongous loans is deeply concerning,” he said.
Reflecting on Nigeria’s financial history, Atiku lamented the return to significant foreign indebtedness just years after former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration cleared the country’s debt.
“It is agonizing to see that just a few years after the Obasanjo administration took us out of foreign indebtedness, we are today back at the top spot in the same conundrum,” he stated.
He called for a more cautious approach to borrowing, urging the government to prioritize fiscal responsibility and transparency to avoid worsening Nigeria’s economic challenges.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has taken a historic step, issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
The charges include crimes against humanity and war crimes allegedly committed during Israel’s recent assault on Gaza.
In a detailed statement, the ICC accused the Israeli leaders of “intentionally and knowingly depriving the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity.”
READ MORE: Osun Govt Decries Attempted Murder Of Park Mgt Chairman By Police
The ICC’s move marks a significant escalation in international scrutiny of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Netanyahu and Gallant are alleged to have orchestrated policies that caused severe harm to the civilian population in Gaza, leading to widespread condemnation from human rights organizations.
Alongside the charges against Israeli officials, the ICC also issued an arrest warrant for Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif. Deif has long been a central figure in Hamas’s military operations. Israel’s military claims to have killed him in a July airstrike, although this has not been independently verified.
The warrants highlight growing calls for accountability amid the ongoing conflict in the region. The ICC’s actions are likely to provoke heated debate and may complicate diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the crisis.
With the warrants issued, global attention now turns to how the international community will respond and whether any practical steps will be taken to enforce them.
Yemi Alade Accuses Cool FM, Clout Africa of Blacklisting Her Music
Gaetz Withdraws From Trumps Cabinet Nomination
Moghalu Prescribes Good Governance As Panacea To Ethnic Agitation
Davido Is Our Son, Our Pride – Gov Adeleke
NANTA Champions Nigeria’s Tourism Revival With ₦742m Investment
Adeleke Represents SW On Ad Hoc Committee on Nat’l Electrification Plan
OSSG Raises Alarm Over Murder Plot By APC Chieftain
NCC, SMEDAN, NAICOM, SEC, Others Set for SUPERNEWS SMEs Conf June 13
Sahara’s Tonye Cole resigns from GPHCDA
Oando opens ultra-modern petrol station in Lagos
Niger Delta Avengers: President Buhari Reads riot Act …considers the carrot and stick option
