Crime
US Appeals Court Strips Trump Of Immunity
A US Appeals Court, sitting in Washington, on Friday ruled that former President Donald Trump must face civil lawsuits over his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol by his supporters.
Biztellers reports that it was the unanimous opinion of the three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the cases against Trump could move forward
The ruling comes nearly a year after the judges had considered Trump’s claims of being entitled to sweeping immunity from the suits brought by a group of congressional Democrats and veteran Capitol Police officers, who seek civil damages for the harms they allegedly suffered as a result of the Capitol attack.
Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan wrote, “The sole issue before us is whether President Trump has demonstrated an entitlement to official-act immunity for his actions leading up to and on January 6 as alleged in the complaints.
“We answer no, at least at this stage of the proceedings.”
It is the considered opinion of the Appeal Court judges that when a first-term president chooses to run for a second term, his campaign for reelection cannot be an official presidential act.
By implication, actions undertaken while campaigning to hold onto the presidency are done in the individual capacity of the office-seeker, rather than an office-holder.
“In his view, a president’s speech on matters of public concern is invariably an official function, and he was engaged in that function when he spoke at the January 6 rally and in the leadup to that day,” the judges pointed out.
“We cannot accept that rationale. While presidents are often exercising official responsibilities when they speak on matters of public concern, that is not always the case,” the panel added.
The president, Srinivasan explained that an office-holder, “does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibilities. And when he acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity from damages liability just because he happens to be the president.”
The appeals court panel noted that while it is rejecting Trump’s argument for immunity at this stage in the proceedings, the former president has not yet had the chance to counter the allegations raised by the police officers and House Democrats, which he must be afforded the opportunity to do.
Judge Gregory Katsas, appointed by Trump, concurred with the decision, while Judge Judith Rogers concurred in part.
As things stand, Trump still has a chance to appeal the decision, either to the full D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court.
He is in the midst of a third bid for the White House and is currently the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.
The court’s ruling stems from cases brought against Trump by two Capitol Police officers, 11 House Democrats and another by Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, in 2021 over comments the former president made in the run-up to and during a rally held outside the White House on Jan. 6, 2021.
The officers, James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, as well as the Democratic lawmakers, argued that Trump incited the mob of his supporters who breached the U.S. Capitol in violation of federal and local laws.
Trump, however, argued that he is shielded from the lawsuits because he was acting within the official duties of the presidency and asked a federal district court to toss out the cases.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta allowed the cases to move forward, and Trump asked the D.C. Circuit to review the decision.
The decision by the appeals court comes as the former president faces ongoing legal woes in several civil and criminal cases filed against him. The Justice Department has charged Trump with four counts related to the 2020 election, which the former president is seeking to dismiss in part on grounds that he is entitled to presidential immunity from prosecution for actions performed within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts in the case related to alleged efforts to thwart the transfer of presidential power after the November 2020 election.
With Agency reports
Former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, has strongly denied allegations that his properties are proceeds of crime, as he challenges the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in court over an interim forfeiture order.
Malami, in a sworn affidavit before the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, maintained that all assets linked to him were lawfully acquired through years of legal practice, business investments, loans, and other legitimate sources of income.
He faulted the EFCC’s position, insisting that the agency failed to present credible evidence connecting any of the properties to unlawful activity.
SEE MORE: Court Pushes Malami, Son’s Terrorism Financing Trial to April 15
According to him, the claims were based on speculation rather than facts.
“There is no document before the court showing these properties were acquired with proceeds of crime,” he argued.
The former Minister of Justice also accused the anti-graft agency of inflating the value of his assets, alleging that properties worth hundreds of millions of naira were wrongly presented as being worth billions.
He further stated that independent valuations had shown significantly lower and more accurate figures.
Malami explained that his wealth was accumulated over decades through legal practice, investments in sectors such as hospitality, agriculture, and education, as well as loans from commercial banks, asset sales, and earnings from book-related activities.
He added that all his income had been duly declared to relevant government agencies.
He also alleged procedural violations, claiming that operatives of the EFCC acted outside their legal authority by seizing properties and evicting occupants without a final forfeiture order.
The EFCC, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, had earlier obtained an interim forfeiture order over the assets, linking them to suspected proceeds of unlawful activities.
However, Malami is urging the court to dismiss the order and restore his properties.
A South African court has sentenced opposition leader Julius Malema to five years in prison following his conviction for illegal possession and public discharge of a firearm.
Malema, who leads the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), was found guilty on multiple counts linked to a 2018 incident during the party’s fifth anniversary celebration in the Eastern Cape.
At the event, he was captured in a widely circulated video firing a semi-automatic rifle into the air.
ALSO READ: Court Orders Arrest of Ex-Minister Sadiya Farouq, Perm Sec Over Alleged $1.3m, N746m Fraud
According to court proceedings, Malema argued that the act was merely celebratory.
However, the court rejected his defence, ruling that the action was not spontaneous but deliberate.
The presiding magistrate described the incident as premeditated and emphasized that Malema’s position as a prominent political figure placed a higher burden of responsibility on him.
The charges against him included unlawful possession of a firearm, discharging a weapon in public, and reckless endangerment.
The court held that such actions posed a serious threat to public safety and could not be excused under any circumstances.
Despite the five-year sentence, Malema was granted leave to appeal, meaning he will not be taken into custody immediately.
He walked free from the courtroom and was greeted by hundreds of supporters who had gathered outside.
Addressing the crowd, Malema alleged that the ruling was politically motivated, claiming that certain forces were attempting to silence him.
His supporters responded with chants and songs, showing continued loyalty to the outspoken politician.
Malema, a former youth leader of the African National Congress (ANC), was expelled after a fallout with former President Jacob Zuma.
He later founded the EFF, which has since grown into one of South Africa’s most influential opposition parties.
Reacting to the development, ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula suggested that the case reflected broader political tensions.
However, lobby group AfriForum, which initiated the case after the video surfaced, insisted the prosecution was based strictly on enforcing the law.
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, has issued a warrant of arrest against former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development, Sadiya Umar Farouq, and a Permanent Secretary in the ministry, Bashir Nura Alkali, over their alleged involvement in a multi-million naira fraud case.
The arrest order was issued on Thursday, April 16, 2026, by Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the FCT High Court after the two defendants failed to appear in court for their scheduled arraignment.
SEE ALSO: Diezani Claims She Was NNPC&’s Rubber Stamp Before London Court
The duo, alongside a third defendant, Sani Nafiu Mohammed, are facing a 21-count charge filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The charges border on alleged criminal breach of trust, abuse of office, fraudulent contract awards, and the diversion of public funds totaling $1.3 million and N746,574,303.
At Thursday’s proceedings, only Mohammed was present in court.
According to the EFCC, the alleged offences occurred between May 2021 and September 2022 in Abuja.
The anti-graft agency accused Farouq and Alkali of misappropriating funds meant to be refunded to the ministry by a private firm, Visual ICT Limited.
The money was reportedly linked to excess payments under the National Social Safety Net Coordinating Office (NASSCO) for the validation of Rapid Response Register beneficiaries.
The prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, told the court that although the charges were filed on December 15, 2025, the two defendants could not initially be served.
He added that despite assurances from their legal representatives, they failed to present themselves in court.
Jacobs further revealed that Farouq had earlier requested the release of her passport for a medical trip to Saudi Arabia in 2024 but has yet to return it or provide any medical report to justify her absence.
“My lord, since that passport was released to her, she has not returned it to the Commission, and no medical report has been submitted,” Jacobs stated, questioning the validity of the health claims presented by her counsel.
Counsel to the first defendant, Abdul Ibrahim, attributed his client’s absence to ill health and attempted to tender an affidavit to that effect, but the court rejected the application.
The EFCC also sought to amend an earlier ex-parte motion to focus on the first and second defendants and requested a bench warrant to compel their appearance.
The prosecution supported its request with an affidavit stating that both defendants had been granted administrative bail but failed to report back.
In response, the defence counsel pleaded with the court to grant a six-week extension to produce Farouq in court.
However, in his ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie granted the EFCC’s application and issued a warrant for the arrest of the two defendants.
The case was subsequently adjourned to May 18, 2026, for arraignment and commencement of trial.
Dangote Refinery’s Expansion to 1.4m bpd Creates Jobs for 95,000 Skilled Workers
PwC Recommends Nigeria’s Oil Sector to South African Investors
Bayern Won’t Sell Olise Even for €200m — Rummenigge Drops Bombshell
Salvation for All Souls Global Outreach Provides Free Medicals at Osun
“My Properties Are Legitimate” — Malami Challenges EFCC Allegations in Court
Horror in Kogi: Gunmen Abduct 24 Pupils in Orphanage Raid, 15 Rescued
Trump’s Family Unveils New Cryptocurrency Platform
Senate Denies Receiving Petitions Against Tinubu’s Ambassadorial Nominees
Dangote Cement Lights Up Benue Host Communities With CSR Initiatives
Reps Recommend 3-year Jail Term For Aviation minister
Tems Sets New Record On Billboard Hot 100 Chart
