Bola Tinubu, the incoming president, has opposed the Peoples Democratic Party's (PDP) and Atiku Abubakar's request for a live broadcast of the election petition proceedings.
Tinubu and his vice, Kashim Shettima, stated in a response submitted to the Presidential Election Tribunal by his council, Wole Olanipekun, that the application is a “abuse of the processes of this honorable court.”
They argued that the relief sought by the applicants was not one that the court could grant, and they asked the Presidential Election Petition Court to dismiss the application.
‘'With all due respect to the petitioners, the motion represents an abuse of this court's procedures. The application also addresses the constitutionally granted authority and jurisdiction granted to the President of the Court of Appeal, which this honorable court cannot consider in its current form. The application touches on executive duties that are solely the responsibility of the President of the Court of Appeal.
The application aims to waste this honorable court's valuable judicial time. The petition that the petitioners filed with this honorable court has nothing to do with the aforementioned application.
The petitioners' application should be rejected by this honorable court in the interest of justice, they claimed.
The respondents criticized the applicants' mention of the fact that virtual proceedings were permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic in an attached written statement. They claimed that Atiku and the PDP had overlooked the fact that the relevant courts had issued practice directions for the exercise.
“This application's invitation to the court to issue an order that it cannot oversee presents another angle to consider. The legal position is still in place, and we do contend that the court, like nature, does not issue a useless or unenforceable order. At best, this application is academic, overly otiose, unnecessary, time-consuming, unusual, and unexpected—especially coming from a group of petitioners who ought to be pleading for an expedited trial of their case. The Constitution's Section 36(3), which mandates that court and tribunal proceedings be open to the public, is the basis for the petitioners' application. According to a plethora of judicial authorities, the term “public” as used in Section 36(3) of the Constitution means both a location to which the general public has unrestricted access and the court itself, which is seated behind open doors and not in the camera.
The specific individuals who make up the class being represented by the plaintiffs or petitioners are always defined in the originating process, even when a class action is brought. The audience for whom this application has been presented is not identified, known, or discernible in this application.
Beyond all of these, we argue that the court of law must and should always continue to be what it is, what it ought to be, and what one would expect it to be: a calm, orderly, reverent, peaceful, honorable, and dignified institution and setting. There is no podium or soapbox here. It is not also a theater or a stadium. This isn't a place for ‘public' entertainment.
With all due respect to the petitioners, the motion represents an abuse of this honorable court's procedures.
