A New York City jury awarded $83.3m to E Jean Carroll in her defamation trial against Donald Trump on Friday.

Carroll will receive $18.3m in compensatory damages and $65m in punitive retribution. The former president is paying Carroll compensatory damages of $18.3m – $11m to fund a reputational repair campaign. The $7.3m is for the emotional harm caused by Trump’s 2019 public statements. Carroll and her legal team were beaming as they left court in a black SUV. They did not answer questions immediately after court let out.

Moments after the decision was announced, Trump decried it as “absolutely ridiculous” on Truth Social, and said he would be filing an appeal.

“I fully disagree with both verdicts, and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party,” Trump wrote. “Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!”

The Manhattan federal court decision comes less than one year after Carroll won $5m in her sexual abuse and defamation trial against Trump.

This sum stems from Carroll’s rape claim against the president in a June 2019 New York magazine article. The publication ran an excerpt of her then-forthcoming book, What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal.

In that excerpt, Carroll said that Trump raped her inside the dressing room of a luxe Manhattan department store around early 1996. The tenor of Trump’s denials – saying, for example, that she lied and was a political operative – became the subject of her 2019 defamation suit against him.

At the time, Carroll could not sue Trump over the alleged assault, as it would have taken place outside the civil statute of limitations. A novel New York state law in 2022, the Adult Survivors Act, opened a one-year window for adult accusers to file suit for incidents outside the civil statute of limitations.

Carroll filed another lawsuit, this one over the incident and defamatory statements after Trump’s presidency ended. This lawsuit proceeded to trial first and the judge in both cases, Lewis Kaplan, determined jurors’ findings – that Trump sexually abused Carroll and tarnished her reputation – would be accepted as fact in this trial.

As a result, Trump could not re-litigate her sexual abuse claim. The jurors were tasked only with weighing financial penalties for damaging Carroll’s reputation – and the sum required to keep Trump from making still more defamatory statements.

“I’m here because Donald Trump assaulted me, and when I wrote about it, he said it never happened,” Carroll said on the stand. “He lied, and it shattered my reputation. I expected him to deny it, but to say it was consensual, when it was not. But that’s what I expected him to say.”

She continued: “The thing that really got me about this was, from the White House, he asked if anyone had any information about me, and if they did, to please come forward as soon as possible, because he wanted the world to know what’s really going on – and that people like me should pay dearly.”

Trump did not attend Carroll’s first trial but made appearances at the second – marking the first time she confronted him publicly in a courtroom. Trump’s comportment during the courtroom showdowns was in keeping with his infamously bombastic behavior, prompting warnings from the judge.

“Mr Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited, and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which is what has been reported to me, and if he disregards court orders,” Kaplan warned.

“Mr Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial … I understand you are probably very eager for me to do that.”

“I would love it, I would love it,” Trump retorted with a gesture.

“I know you would, you just can’t control yourself in this circumstance, apparently,” Kaplan said.

The end stages of this trial were also marked by another hallmark of Trump’s legacy: Covid-related chaos. On 22 January, trial proceedings were postponed as one juror experienced coronavirus symptoms; his leading attorney, Alina Habba, also told judge Kaplan that she felt unwell and had been exposed to Covid.

Trump did take the stand on 25 January. Kaplan restricted the scope of her questions and his responses, as per his prior ruling that he could not re-litigate her claims.

Habba was allowed to ask: “Do you stand by your testimony in the deposition?”

“One hundred percent, yes,” he said, referring to the deposition in which he denied her claims.

“Did you deny the allegation because Ms Carroll made an accusation?”

“That’s exactly right. She said something, I consider it a false accusation. No difference,” Trump retorted. This sparked an objection from Carroll’s camp. Kaplan said that everything after “yes, I did” was stricken.

“Did you ever instruct anyone to hurt Ms Carroll in your statements?”

“No. I just wanted to defend myself, my family, and frankly, the presidency,” Trump said. Carroll’s team objected again. Kaplan deemed that everything after “no” be stricken, so jurors were ordered to disregard this statement.

In total, Trump’s direct and cross testimony lasted about two or three minutes.

No fewer than 140 officials will track and assess the performance of federal ministries, departments, and agencies ahead of the first assessment exercise at the end of this month.

This is as the officials joined the third technical retreat for delivery desk officers of federal ministries on the implementation of presidential priorities and ministerial deliverables in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State capital, which began on Wednesday.

A senior official working closely with the Central Delivery Coordination Unit headed by the Special Adviser to the President on Policy Coordination, Mrs Hadiza Bala-Usman, revealed that the officers, who would conduct the assessment, were drawn from 35 federal government ministries, departments and agencies.

“It will involve a permanent secretary and directors of planning and other officials, four each from 35 ministries. They are considering the modalities of the assessment, the key performance indicators and the reporting mechanisms and all of those,” the official who did not want to be mentioned told one of our correspondents.

At the retreat, Bala-Usman echoed President Bola Tinubu’s words to participants when she warned that her principal would sack ministers who failed to perform their duties.

She noted that Tinubu was poised to deliver on his promise of making life better and easier for Nigerians.

Calling for the total commitment of delivery officers and directors of planning in ministries, Bala-Usman said, “We must understand that the President is very serious about his promises and that ministers will be assessed, and ministers will be dropped if they don’t perform.

“You must understand that as ministerial delivery desk officers, you are the engine room that will provide that feedback, constantly track ministerial progress, and report challenges and bottlenecks to the central coordinating and delivery unit.”

The presidential aide, who dove into the specifics, explained, “In the Ministry of Aviation, we will be assessing FAAN on customer experience at the airports; are the escalators, lifts, and conveyor belts functional?

“What are the consequences of delayed time of departure for airlines? These are things that everybody can feel and see.

“When talking about agriculture, we want to see our index of fertiliser use per hectare grow because of the attendant investment that has been made in fertiliser interventions.”

On October 17, 2023, Bala-Usman said her office would begin a quarterly assessment of the performance of the 48 ministers (now 47) appointed by the President by January 2024.

She said January would be the best period to begin the exercise as all the ministries would have received their budgets for the 2024 fiscal year.

“We’re looking to commence an assessment of the respective ministries in January 2024. We’re going to have a quarterly assessment of performance, which will culminate into an annual scorecard,” the former boss of the Nigerian Ports Authority explained in an interview on TVC.

She said the annual scorecard would be reviewed during periodic retreats where performances would be assessed against key performance indicators.

The three-month period for the first evaluation will follow a three-day cabinet retreat for ministers and presidential aides, which was held from November 1 to 3, 2023, where ministers signed a performance bond with the President.

The bond signed by each minister and permanent secretaries detailed the deliverables each ministry plans to achieve within the 2024 budget cycle.

“That performance bond is what we’re going to use to track the performance of the ministers,” Bala-Usman had said.

Lawyers, CSOs comment

Commenting on the development, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Mike Ozekhome, said the performance review of the ministers should not be the priority of the government as the nation was in a dire strait.

He stated, “This President should be one in a hurry. This country is battered and tattered. The country is bleeding. The people are downtrodden. There is anger and melancholy. There is poverty. There is agony. Nigerians are crying and in abject penury. There is gnashing of teeth across the divides in Nigeria.

“How can a bag of rice be selling at over N55,000 and the Presidency is talking about assessing ministers? Take a look at the naira that is currently in a free fall because we are subjected to neo-colonial dictates from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

“To me, it is a case of ‘Physician heal thyself’ as the President is trying to heal the ministries. To assess a minister is to know the deliverables. What benchmark did the President set when he appointed the ministers? What was in the All Progressives Congress manifesto as to their deliverables?

“Since the ministers were sworn in more than six months ago, what have they done? If we take the Ministry of Works, for instance, it will be easy to assess how many roads have been constructed or started or earmarked for commencement. But, for other ministries like special duties; how will they be assessed?

“As for the Ministry of Poverty Alleviation and Humanitarian Affairs, how will they assess them? Where is all the money that has been pumped to alleviate poverty? Why is there so much poverty in the land? What number of Nigerians has been brought out of poverty? What are the verifiable indices to show that this has been done? I have already seen some ministers who are not performing at all. Some of them are just there like onlookers.”

On his part, Chief Yomi Alliyu (SAN), faulted the move, saying, “In the first instance, I don’t see how anyone will assess a minister. The criteria are bound to be subjective rather than objective. This is because ministers are not really the ones working in the ministries. They are just policymakers. The civil servants are the ones who will implement policies. In that instance, it is the members of the public who can assess whether a minister is working or not.

“A minister could be hyperactive and corrupt. We have seen ministers use their former companies as pipes to siphon government money from another ministry and some of them are still serving.

“You will not say because a minister has some media hype, he will score well and perform. Sometimes, it is not the people that you hear of who are the performers in this country. Nobody can evaluate any minister other than members of the public.”

Also reacting, another senior lawyer, Mr Ebun Adegboruwa (SAN), stated that it was PresidentTinubu himself who needed to be assessed.

“I don’t think the President has the moral justification for such an assessment. It is the President himself who needs an assessment. The ministers have no direct responsibility to the people of Nigeria. They were not the ones elected. The buck stops on the President’s table. Is it for the insecurity, inflation, or the collapse of the exchange and forex regime?” he queried.

Civil Society Organisations called on Tinubu to suspend ministers who underperform or are found to be enmeshed in corrupt practices.

The Chairman of Civil Society Organisations in Rivers State, Enafaa Georgewill, made the call in an interview with one of our correspondents, adding that ministers could be likened to employees who should be held accountable when necessary.

Georgewill stated, “The President can be likened to an employer and if an employer employs an employee and the employee is not performing as expected, he who hired them should fire them and where there is a need for caution, disciplinary action like suspension and other reprimand actions should be taken.

“Until those in authority, and in this case, the President, begin to instil discipline and real governance, as well as social welfare, we will not be able to make real progress. So, yes, the President has the power to reprimand ministers and he should use it.”

The Director of Youths for Change, Taiwo Oyayinka, urged the President to ensure the dismissal of underperforming ministers as he had earlier promised.

He said, “President Tinubu promised us last year that ministers who underperform would be dismissed; he should stand by this charge. Corrupt ministers should be flushed out of the system.

“Such an action will serve as a deterrent to others. There should be no sacred cow in power. All those found culpable should be suspended or dismissed.”

A chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party, Segun Sowunmi, said the assessment of ministers was a novel idea, but noted that such an endeavour must be holistic.

He said, “This is the first time we have heard that ministers are going to be accessed and that there will be consequences after the assessment, but you know anything with government, especially in our country, it is always better for you to exercise some caution because if you celebrate early, you may just end up disappointed.

“On the surface, it is a good idea; maybe it will help us scale up service delivery. Also, maybe the report of the assessment can serve as a benchmark either for the others or people who will be taking government office.”

The National Secretary of New Nigeria People’s Party, Mr Oladipupo Olayokun, “I think that is the normal thing to do because when you give someone an assignment, you should periodically assess his performance because don’t forget that the President told Nigerians that the ministers would be assessed. It is a departure from what we witnessed in the past eight years, especially given what Nigerians are experiencing under this government.”

The National Director, Media and Publicity of the Labour Party, Dr Yunusa Tanko, said, “Any minister found wanting shows he or she is not qualified to serve the country. If the President wants to begin to screen his aides, that means he must have presented himself for screening ab initio. He does not have a locus standi to start screening people because if they were screened ab initio, we would have known about their credentials.”