Tag: Supreme Court

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Thai court orders ex-PM back to prison over unlawful hospitalisation

Thailand’s former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has been sent back to prison after the country’s Supreme Court ruled that his extended hospitalisation following his return from self-imposed exile was unjustified, Reuters reported.

The court found that both Thaksin and his doctors had colluded to avoid serving his sentence behind bars.

The 76-year-old billionaire and political powerbroker was returned to prison on Tuesday, marking the latest chapter in a turbulent political career that has dominated Thai politics for over two decades.

His re-incarceration comes amid a wave of political turmoil, just days after the collapse of the latest government led by his daughter, Paetongtarn Shinawatra.

Thaksin had returned to Thailand in August 2023 after 15 years abroad and was sentenced to eight years for corruption and abuse of power during his 2001–2006 premiership.

The sentence was later commuted to one year by royal pardon. However, he spent only a few hours in prison before being moved to a hospital, citing heart issues and chest pain.

He remained there for six months until his release on parole.

The Supreme Court found that Thaksin’s hospital stay was unwarranted and that minor surgeries were performed to extend his time outside prison.

“The defendant knew the facts or was aware the situation was not a critical emergency.

“The defendant only had a chronic condition that could be treated as an outpatient and did not require hospitalisation,” the court said in its ruling.

According to Reuters, television footage showed Thaksin being escorted by corrections officers and arriving at a Bangkok jail shortly after the court’s decision.

Thaksin’s daughter, Paetongtarn, who was removed from office on August 29, was visibly emotional outside the court. “Me and my family are concerned,” she told reporters, adding, “This is quite heavy.”

Anutin Charnvirakul, the incoming prime minister and a former member of Thaksin’s party, expressed sympathy.

“I am saddened, I sympathise with him.

“For someone who has governed the country, I don’t want him to face something like this,” Anutin said.

Thaksin remains a divisive figure in Thailand. Once a police officer who became a telecom magnate, he won the loyalty of rural and working-class voters with populist policies such as cash handouts, healthcare reforms, and farm subsidies.

However, his rise angered Thailand’s conservative elite, including the military and judiciary, leading to repeated clashes and his eventual ousting in a 2006 coup.

Thaksin is the first former Thai prime minister to be jailed. Whether this signals the end of his political career or yet another chapter remains to be seen. (Punch)

Posted on by — Leave a comment

US court rules many of Trump’s global tariffs are illegal

A US appeals court has ruled that most tariffs issued by US President Donald Trump are illegal, setting up a potential legal showdown that could upend his foreign policy agenda.

The ruling affects Trump’s so-called “reciprocal” tariffs, imposed on most countries around the world, as well as other tariffs slapped on China, Mexico and Canada.

In a 7-4 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Trump’s argument that the tariffs were permitted under an emergency economic powers act, calling them “invalid as contrary to law”.

The ruling will not take effect until 14 October, to give the administration time to ask the US Supreme Court to take up the case.

Trump criticised the appeals court and its ruling on Truth Social, saying: “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”

He wrote: “Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end.

“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.”

Trump had justified the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to act against “unusual and extraordinary” threats.

Trump has declared a national emergency on trade, arguing that a trade imbalance was harmful to US national security. But the court ruled that imposing tariffs was not within the president’s mandate, and that setting levies was “a core Congressional power”.

In its 127-page judgement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the IEEPA “neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the president’s power to impose tariffs”.

The power to impose taxes and tariffs therefore continues to belong to Congress, the court ruled, and the IEEPA did not override this.

The court wrote that it was unlikely that, when Congress passed the law in 1977, it was intended to “depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs”.

“Whenever Congress intends to delegate to the president the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly, either by using unequivocal terms like tariff and duty, or via an overall structure which makes clear that Congress is referring to tariffs,” the judges wrote.

The ruling comes in response to two lawsuits filed by small businesses and a coalition of US states.

They were brought after Trump’s executive orders in April, which imposed a baseline 10% tariff on almost every country in the world, as well as “reciprocal” tariffs intended to correct trade imbalances with dozens of countries. Trump declared the date to be America’s “liberation day” from unfair trade policies.

In May, the New York-based Court of International Trade declared the tariffs were unlawful. That decision was put on hold during the appeal process.

In addition to those tariffs, Friday’s ruling also strikes down tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, which Trump argues are necessary to stop the importation of drugs.

However, the decision does not apply to other tariffs, like those imposed on steel and aluminium, which were brought in under a different presidential authority.

Ahead of the ruling, lawyers for the White House argued that invalidating the tariffs would lead to a 1929-style financial collapse, a stock market crash which led to the Great Depression.

“Suddenly revoking the president’s tariff authority under IEEPA would have catastrophic consequences for our national security, foreign policy, and economy,” they wrote in a letter.

“The president believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin.”

The ruling also raises questions about deals some nations agreed with the US for reduced tariffs rates.

The latest development means the case is now almost certain to head to the Supreme Court, which has in recent years taken a sceptical view toward presidents who try to implement sweeping new policies that are not directly authorised by Congress.

During Joe Biden’s presidency, the court expanded on what it called the “major questions doctrine” to invalidate Democratic efforts to use existing laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions by power plants and to forgive student loan debt for millions of Americans.

The top court’s nine justices, if they agree to consider the case, could weigh whether Trump’s expansive tariff programme is another example of presidential overreach or sufficiently grounded in law and presidential authority.

Even though the appellate court handed the president a defeat, the White House may take solace in the fact that only three of the court’s 11 judges were appointed by Republicans.

The Supreme Court has six Republican appointees, including three who were selected by Trump himself. (BBC)

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Supreme Court reserves judgment in Edo gov election appeal

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the Peoples Democratic Party’s candidate, Asue Ighodalo, over the outcome of the September 21, 2024, governorship election in Edo State.

The apex court made this decision after hearing arguments for and against the appeal.

The appeal challenges the result declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission, which announced Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress as the winner of the election.

The appeal was heard by a five-member panel of justices led by Justice Garba Lawal.

Ighodalo’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Ken Mozia, asked the court to overturn the judgments of the lower courts, which had upheld INEC’s declaration of Okpebholo as winner.

On May 29, 2025, the Court of Appeal in Abuja affirmed the ruling of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal.

Both courts dismissed Ighodalo’s petition, describing it as lacking merit.

On April 2, 2025, a three-member panel of the tribunal, chaired by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, dismissed the petition filed by the PDP and Ighodalo, citing the petitioners’ failure to prove claims of over-voting and electoral irregularities.

The petition, marked EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, alleged that Okpebholo did not win the highest number of lawful votes and that the election was marred by widespread irregularities, over-voting, and violations of the Electoral Act.

The PDP and Ighodalo alleged that the election involved incorrect collation of figures, errors in vote computation in 765 polling units, and a failure by INEC to serialise ballot papers or pre-record sensitive materials.

They claimed this enabled electoral malpractice in favour of the APC and its candidate.

During the trial, the petitioners called 19 witnesses and subpoenaed a Senior Technical Officer from INEC’s ICT department, who brought 154 BVAS machines from 133 polling units to support claims of over-voting.

INEC did not present any witnesses.

Okpebholo called one witness, while the APC presented four.

While the PDP asked the tribunal to nullify the election based on the evidence, the respondents countered that the case lacked merit.

They argued that Ighodalo failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he won the election or that there was significant non-compliance with the law.

Justice Kpochi, in the tribunal’s judgment, said, “We hold that the failure by the petitioners to call polling unit agents, presiding officers or other registered voters was fatal to the case.

“It still remains the law that documents do not speak for themselves. A petitioner must prove their evidence. The allegation of non-compliance must be proved.

“The BVAS machines were clearly dumped and remain dormant. None of the witnesses could speak to the BVAS machine. The machines were not demonstrated to prove the allegations of over-voting.

“All the evidence documents tendered by the petitioners to prove over-voting fall short of the requirements. The law requires that the petitioners shall call witnesses to link the evidence rendered.”

On the petitioners’ claims that INEC did not comply with electoral guidelines, Justice Kpochi ruled, “The petitioners failed to prove that the first defendant did not comply with the provisions of the electoral act or INEC rules of conduct as required by law.”

Regarding claims of missing serial numbers on ballots, the tribunal ruled, “There are figures here.”

The court also dismissed claims of a lack of prior recording of materials used in the poll.

In the final result announced by INEC, Okpebholo polled 291,667 votes while Ighodalo came second with 247,655 votes. (Punch)

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Supreme Court nullifies Jokolo’s reinstatement as Emir of Gwandu

The Supreme Court on Wednesday nullified the decision of the Kebbi State High Court that reinstated Al-Mustapha Jokolo as the 19th Emir of Gwandu, ruling that the case was filed without first exhausting the mandatory domestic resolution mechanisms prescribed by law.

In a split decision of three to two, the apex court held that the deposed Emir, Jokolo, failed to follow due legal process in instituting the suit.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Emmanuel Agim stated that while aggrieved persons may seek judicial intervention, they must first comply with Section 5(4) of the Kebbi State Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, which requires a formal complaint to be submitted to the governor before litigation can proceed.

Jokolo was deposed in 2005 under controversial circumstances and subsequently approached the Kebbi State High Court seeking reinstatement.

The trial court ruled in his favour in 2014, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, in 2016. Both courts ordered his reinstatement.

However, the Kebbi State Government and the current Emir, Alhaji Muhammadu Ilyasu-Bashar, challenged these rulings at the Supreme Court.

Originally scheduled for June 6, the Supreme Court brought forward the judgment to 4 June due to the Eid-el-Kabir holidays.

The Supreme Court held that Jokolo did not serve a pre-action notice on the Governor of Kebbi State, a mandatory step before initiating the suit.

Agreeing with the appellants, the Court ruled that failure to seek resolution through administrative channels rendered the suit incompetent.

This procedural lapse deprived the lower courts of jurisdiction, leading to the setting aside of the entire proceedings and judgments of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal.

Justice Agim remarked, “This suit was filed prematurely without first presenting a complaint to the governor as stipulated by law. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and its decision is therefore null and void.

“Section 4(3) of the law applies to both appointment and deposition matters. The governor must first be notified.”

He further stated that the High Court judge “deprived the court of jurisdiction” by proceeding without adherence to this requirement.

The Supreme Court set aside the rulings of both lower courts and made no order as to costs.

In a dissenting minority judgment, Justice Ibrahim Salami dismissed the cross-appeals and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, arguing that the executive governor must act in accordance with the law and due process.

The Supreme Court consolidated four appeals and two cross-appeals into a single judgment, with all parties agreeing that the outcome of the principal appeal would bind the others. (Punch)

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Supreme Court reserves ruling on appeal seeking to nullify Rivers LG polls

The Supreme Court, yesterday, reserved judgment in the appeal the All Progressives Congress, APC, filed to nullify the outcome of the Local Government elections that held in Rivers State on October 5, 2024.

A five-member panel of the apex court, headed by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, okayed the matter for judgment, after parties adopted their final briefs of argument.

The court had earlier in the day dismissed an appeal Governor Siminialayi Fubara filed to challenge another judgment that sought to compel him to re-present the 2024 budget of the state before the Martin Amaewhule-led faction of the Rivers State Assembly, which he argued had been overtaken by event.

Meanwhile, the Opposition Coalition has clarified that no Supreme Court judgment was issued against Fubara, despite speculations to the contrary, adding that Oko Jumbo remains the legitimate Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

While the APC, through its team of lawyers, led by Mr. J. Daudu, urged the Supreme Court to set-aside the November 21, 2024, judgment of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, which declined to invalidate the election, Mr. Yusuf Ali, who announced appearance for Fubara, as well as Chris Uche, who represented the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission, RSIEC, sought the dismissal of the appeal.

Recall that the appellate court vacated the judgment that barred the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, from releasing voters register to the RSIEC for the conduct of the LG polls.

The Justice Onyekachi Otisi-led panel, in a unanimous decision, held that the high court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain suit against the Rivers State LG elections.

According to the appellate court, section 28 of the Electoral Act does not cover elections conducted by states but only Federal elections, governorship and Area Council Elections in the Federal Capital Territory.

Meantime, the Supreme Court adjourned the case for judgment on a day it dismissed an appeal Fubara filed to challenge another judgment that sought to compel him to re-present the 2024 budget of the state before Martin Amaewhule-led faction of the Rivers State Assembly.

When the appeal was called up for hearing, yesterday, Fubara’s lawyer applied to withdraw it, saying it had been overtaken by events.

Neither Wole Olanipekun, who stood for the Amaewhule-led Rivers State lawmakers, nor Mr. Daudu, who represented the 3rd to 12th defendants, challenged the withdrawal, though they persuaded the apex court to award N2million cost to each of them.

The respondents further convinced the Justice Abba-Aji-led panel to dismiss the matter instead of striking it out, noting that they have already exchanged processes with the Appellant.

Maintaining that Fubara’s loss was “self-inflicted,” the appelate court held that since his counter-affidavit was withdrawn, “the appellant is deemed to have admitted the rather weighty facts that were presented by the respondents.”

The Supreme Court, yesterday, also reserved its verdict on seven consolidated appeals that are trailing the Appeal Court judgment that vacated the order that initially stopped the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, from releasing monthly statutory allocations to Rivers State.

Factional members of the Rivers State Assembly loyal to the immediate past governor of the state and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Mr. Nyesom Wike, had insisted that all federal monthly allocations meant for Rivers state, should be withheld.

On his part, governor Fubara argued that the Amaewhule-led group had since ceased to be lawmakers in the state, having decamped from the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, which sponsored their election, to the All Progressives Congress, APC. (Vanguard)