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.
A suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s controversial appointment of a Sole Administrator for Rivers State suffered a setback on Thursday as the President and the Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, failed to appear or send legal representation before the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.
The matter, brought before Justice James Omotosho, was instituted by Abuja-based legal practitioner, Mr. Johnmary Jideobi, who is urging the court to declare the appointment of Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas (Rtd) as unconstitutional and to nullify the suspension of the state’s elected Governor and Deputy Governor.
READ MORE: BREAKING: HURIWA Urges Supreme Court To Dispense Justice Quick On Rivers Emergency Rule
Although the Attorneys-General of Lagos, Bayelsa, Taraba, and Edo states were present and announced their appearances, the absence of legal representation for both the President (1st Defendant) and the AGF (2nd Defendant) drew attention during the proceedings.
Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Chimezie Enuka, confirmed to the court that all parties—except the Attorneys-General of Zamfara and Bauchi states—had been properly served with the originating processes and hearing notice.
Following a consensus among the present legal teams, Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter to June 11, 2025, and ordered that fresh hearing notices be issued to all defendants.
The suit, filed under number FHC/ABJ/CS/572/2025, has Tinubu, the AGF, and the 36 state Attorneys-General listed as defendants. Jideobi is asking the court to set aside all decisions and actions taken by Ibas in the name of a Sole Administrator, arguing they lack any constitutional basis.
In his affidavit in support of the suit, the plaintiff asserted that President Tinubu does not possess the constitutional powers to suspend elected state officials or to appoint unelected figures to govern in their place.
“As a Nigerian lawyer and all through my years of practice, I have never seen the word ‘Sole Administrator’ in the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” Jideobi stated.
“I know that neither the 1st Defendant nor the 2nd Defendant appointed the Governor and Deputy-Governor of Rivers State of Nigeria and that no Governor or Deputy Governor in Nigeria is an appointee of the 1st and 2nd Defendants,” he added.
The plaintiff contends that the only constitutionally recognized grounds for removing or interrupting the tenure of elected Governors and their deputies are outlined in Sections 180, 188, 189, 305, and 306 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
He is therefore seeking a declaration from the court that the President has “NO constitutional authority to either remove, suspend or otherwise tamper with the tenure of a duly elected Governor and Deputy Governor of a State and appoint a sole Administrator [or any other substitute howsoever called or described].”
Jideobi warned that unless the court intervenes, “removal of duly elected Governors and Deputy-Governors may become the pastime of the President, thereby opening the floodgate of anarchy capable of consuming this nation.”
He added: “I have instituted this suit in the public interest, in the defence of the Rule of Law and accentuation of the supremacy of the Constitution… It will be in the interest of justice for this Honourable Court to grant the prayers contained on the face of this Originating Summons.”
Among the specific reliefs sought are an order setting aside the suspension of the Governor and Deputy Governor of Rivers State, a nullification of Ibas’ appointment, and a directive ordering him to vacate the Government House immediately.
In a dramatic show of solidarity, members of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) staged a picket outside the Federal Ministry of Mines and Steel Development’s headquarters in Abuja.
The protest was sparked by the ministry’s refusal to comply with a court order that demanded the reinstatement of Comrade Victor Ekpaha, who was dismissed from his position more than 20 years ago.
READ ALSO: Tariff Hike Protest: Telecoms Union Backs NLC’s Suspension Of Protest
The workers’ action resulted in the shutdown of the ministry’s operations, as they called for Ekpaha’s immediate reinstatement and the payment of his full salary, allowances, and other benefits for the over two decades that the case has been unresolved.
The NLC has expressed its determination to continue pressuring the ministry until the court ruling is respected and Ekpaha is fully compensated for the years of unpaid entitlements.
The union has also emphasized the broader issue of labor rights and justice, urging the government to address such longstanding grievances.
More to follow………………
Dangote Refinery has announced a N15 reduction in its ex-gantry loading cost, bringing it down to N865 per litre from the previous price of N880.
The new price, confirmed by a pro forma invoice and verified by petroleumprice.ng, was communicated to customers in a notice on Thursday morning.
This price adjustment follows earlier reports that the 650,000 barrels-per-day refinery was expected to lower its petrol loading costs by the end of this week.
The reduction is expected to further drive down fuel prices in the country, providing some relief to consumers.
READ MORE: ECCIMA Applauds Dangote’s Impact On Nigeria’s Economy
Chinedu Ukadike, National Publicity Secretary of the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN), assured the public that the price drop aligns with the Federal Executive Council’s recent directive on the Naira-for-Crude agreement.
“We are confident that this price reduction will be beneficial for the Nigerian people,” Ukadike said.
In a related development, the Federal Executive Council has authorized the full implementation of the long-suspended Naira-for-Crude agreement with local refiners.
This policy aims to reduce Nigeria’s reliance on foreign exchange for petroleum imports and boost local refining capacity.
The Ministry of Finance released a statement following a meeting between Finance Minister Wale Edun and Dangote Refinery officials.
The statement emphasized that the Naira-for-Crude initiative is a long-term policy, not a temporary measure.
“The initiative is designed to support sustainable local refining, enhance energy security, and reduce the country’s dependency on foreign currency for petroleum products,” the Ministry’s statement read.
Nnamdi Kanu’s N50bn Lawsuit Against FG Struck Out Over Lack Of Prosecution
Tinubu, AGF Snub Suit Seeking To Sack Rivers Sole Administrator
I Want To Fight Anthony Joshua – Portable
NLC Shuts Down Ministry Of Mines Over 20-Year-Old Unlawful Dismissal
JUST IN: Dangote Refinery Cuts Petrol Price To N865 per
