The Supreme Court of the United State, has ended the right to abortion in a seismic ruling that shreds half a century of constitutional protections on one of the most divisive and bitterly fought issues in American political life.

The conservative-dominated court overturned the landmark 1973 “Roe v Wade” decision that enshrined a woman’s right to an abortion, saying that individual states can now permit or restrict the procedure themselves.

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” the court said.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said “abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” he said.

Read Also: Fake COAS Bolarinwa To Open Defence Over Alleged N277m Fraud

Dissenting were the three liberals on the court.

The ruling will likely set into motion a cavalcade of new laws in roughly half of the 50 US states that will severely restrict or outright ban and criminalize abortions, forcing women to travel long distances to states that still permit the procedure.

The opinion shredded the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling by the nation’s highest court that said women had the right to abortion based on the constitutional right to privacy over their own bodies.

Alito’s opinion largely mirrors his draft opinion that was the subject of an extraordinary leak in early May, sparking demonstrations around the country and tightened security at the court in downtown Washington.

Barricades have been erected around the court to keep back the protesters gathered outside — after an armed man was arrested on June 8 near the home of conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The court’s ruling goes against an international trend of easing abortion laws, including in such countries as Ireland, Argentina, Mexico and Colombia where the Catholic Church continues to wield considerable influence.

AFP

A General and Special Court Martial set up by the military has recommended dismissal of four erring personnel of the Nigerian Army involved in the ongoing fight against insurgency in the North East.

The Special Court also recommended thirty personnel to be sentenced to prison.

The Theater Commander, Operation Hadin Kai, Major General Christopher Musa, disclosed that a total of 227 soldiers were brought before the court.

He added that the General and Special Court Martial also recommended 25 personnel for demotion, 20 for loss of pay and 17 others to face severe reprimand.

Musa also disclosed that 10 soldiers were discharged and acquitted, 14 cases were struck off and 107 were recommended for summary trial.

He spoke during the inauguration of a Special Court Martial to try 29 soldiers at the headquarters of the Theatre in Maimalari Barracks in Maiduguri, Borno State.

Musa said, “A total of 227 soldiers involved in the fight against insurgency within the North East of Nigeria were brought before a General and Special Court-Martial set up by the military, for various cases of misconduct.

Four soldiers have been recommended for dismissal and 30 others are to be imprisoned. 25 personnel for reduction of rank, 20 for loss of pay and 17 others to face severe reprimand.

“Also, 10 soldiers were discharged and acquitted, 14 cases were struck off while 107 were recommended for summary trial.

“What we have done is that they were recommended and forwarded to Army Headquarters. The confirming authority for the soldiers rests on the Chief of Army Staff, while the Army Council is the body to ratify the officers before the implementation.”

The Supreme Court has struck out the suit by President Muhammadu Buhari and the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, Abubakar Malami seeking to void the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022.

Delivering judgment, a seven-member panel of the apex court, headed by Justice Musa Dattijo Mohammed, was unanimous in holding that Buhari, having participated in the making of the law by assenting to it, could not turn around to fault its provisions.

The court, which upheld the objections raised by the National Assembly and other defendants against the suit, declined to determine it on the merit but declared that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear it and that the suit was an abuse of court process.

Section 84(12) of the electoral act 2022 provides thus: “No political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election”.

The implication of the above is that political appointees who intend to be voting delegates or stand as aspirants for elective positions in a primary election shall, first of all, resign their appointments.

Also Read: Apex Court Affirms INEC Power To Deregister Political Parties

For a political appointee, the failure to resign an appointment before voting as a delegate or standing as an aspirant in a primary election is a violation of the electoral act and further renders the primary election null and void and illegal.

Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, held that it was an attack on the democratic principle of Separation of Powers for the President to seek to direct/request the Legislature to make a particular law or alter any law.

“The President lacks the power to direct the National Assembly to amend or enact an act..it violates the principle of separation of powers.

“There is no part of the Constitution that makes the exercise of legislative powers subject to the directive of the President,” the court said.