Bola Tinubu, the president-elect, and Kashim Shettima, the vice president-elect, have asked the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) to reject Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s request for a live broadcast of the proceedings.
According to news sources, Atiku and the PDP asked the tribunal to broadcast its sessions in a document they submitted. The Labour Party and Peter Obi, a contender for president, supported this.
However, Tinubu and Shettma criticized the application as frivolous and an attempt to squander the court’s time in their response to it, which was submitted on Monday by their team of attorneys, led by Wole Olanipekun (SAN).
Atiku Asks For Presidential Tribunal Proceedings To Be Broadcast Live
The court is not a soapbox, stadium, or theater where the people should be entertained, according to the APC candidates.
They characterized the application as a misuse of the presidential election petition tribunal’s procedures.
They questioned why a petitioner who wanted a quick hearing would submit an application designed to divert the court’s attention and eat up valuable time.
The petitioners’ request for relief, according to Tinubu and Shettma, is not one the court could give. They also claimed that the application refers to the creation of court policy, which is outside the PEPC’s purview in its current form.
“The application also touches on the powers and jurisdiction invested in the President of the Court of Appeal by the Constitution, over which this honourable court as presently constituted cannot entertain.
“The application touches on the administrative functions, which are exclusively reserved for the President of the Court of Appeal.
Atiku’s Motion Seeking Live Broadcast Of Tribunal’s Proceedings Gets A Date
“The application is aimed at dissipating the precious judicial time of this honourable court.
“The said application does not have any bearing with the petition filed by the petitioners before this honourable court.
“It is in the interest of justice for this honourable court to dismiss the said application filed by the petitioners,” they said.
The petitioners’ allusion to virtual proceedings that were permitted during the COVID-19 epidemic was criticized by Tinubu and Shettma.
They claimed that Atiku and his party had neglected to inform the court that the relevant courts had issued practice directives for the exercise.
Presidential Tribunal: See What Tinubu Said About Request To Broadcast Court Proceedings
They further pointed out that the practice directives were only created by the heads of courts, not by particular judges or Justices.
“Another angle to this very curious application is the invitation it extends to the court to make an order that it cannot supervise.
“The position of the law remains, and we do submit, that the court, like nature, does not make an order in vain, or an order which is incapable of enforcement,” the respondents stated.
Tinubu and Shettma added: “At the very best, this application is academic, very otiose, very unnecessary, very time-wasting, most unusual and most unexpected, particularly, from a set of petitioners, who should be praying for the expeditious trial of their petition.
“Petitioners have brought their application under Section 36(3) of the Constitution which provides that the proceedings of a court/tribunal shall be held in public.
Dismiss Peter Obi’s Petition, Probe States Labour Party Won – Tinubu Asks Tribunal
“The word ‘public’ as applied under Section 36(3) of the Constitution has been defined in a plethora of judicial authorities to mean a place where members of the public have unhindered access, and the court itself, sitting behind opened doors, not in camera.
“Even in situations where a class action is presented, the particular people constituting the class being represented by the plaintiffs or petitioners are always defined in the originating process.
“Here, in this application, the public at whose behest this application has been presented is not defined, not known, not discernable.
“Beyond all these, it is our submission that the court of law must and should always remain what it is, what it should be and what it is expected to be: a serene, disciplined, hallowed, tranquil, honourable and decorous institution and place.
“It is not a rostrum or a soapbox. It is not also a stadium or theatre. It is not an arena for ‘public’ entertainment.
Breaking:Tribunal Court Rules On Atiku’s Claim On INEC Server
“With much respect to the petitioners, the motion is an abuse of the processes of this honourable court.”
Additionally, INEC made similar points in its counter-affidavit, which was submitted last Monday, and asked the court to deny Atiku and his party’s application.
Follow us on Facebook
Post Disclaimer
The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the author and forum participants on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of Anaedo Online or official policies of the Anaedo Online.