Tinubu Disapproves of Live Television Coverage of Election Petition Hearings

Both the President-elect-elect Bola Tinubu and the Vice President-elect-elect Kashim Shettima have petitioned the Presidential Election Petition Court to deny Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party’s request to broadcast the proceedings live on television.

The respondents are said to have argued, according to the reports, that the court does not have the authority to grant the relief that is being sought by the applicants.

“The motion is an abuse of the court’s processes,” the respondents stated, expressing their respect for the petitioners in the process. They went on to criticize the application even further, dismissing it as groundless, and emphasized the fact that the court is not a venue for public entertainment but rather a place where serious legal proceedings take place.

The respondents, who were represented by their legal team that was led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, questioned why a petitioner would file an application with the intention of distracting the court and wasting its valuable time. Chief Olanipekun was in charge of leading the legal team.

Read Also: Tribunal: Drama as Apapa, Labour Party officials argue in court

In their counter affidavit, they asserted that the application concerns matters of court policy formulation, which are not within the jurisdiction of the Presidential Election Petition Court in its current composition. This assertion was made in reference to the fact that they filed the counter affidavit.

“The application also relates to the powers and jurisdiction vested in the President of the Court of Appeal by the Constitution, which is something that this court is unable to address at this time. They argued that it involved administrative responsibilities that were solely the responsibility of the President of the Court of Appeal.

The respondents emphasized that the application does nothing more than waste the valuable judicial time of the court and has no bearing on the petition that was submitted by the applicants. They pleaded with the court to disregard the application on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the administration of justice.

The applicants’ reference to the allowance of virtual proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic was debunked by the respondents in their written address. They brought up the fact that Atiku and his party had not acknowledged that the respective courts had issued practice directions in order to make such proceedings easier, and they pointed this out to the audience.

One more aspect of the application that the respondents found problematic was the fact that it invited the court to issue an order that it would be unable to supervise.

They made a statement to the effect that “The court, like nature, does not make an order in vain or an order that cannot be enforced.”

In addition, the respondents have referred to the application as academic, unnecessary, time-wasting, and unexpected. This is especially the case when taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners ought to be seeking a speedy trial for their petition.

They contended that the term “public” in this context refers to a place that is accessible to the public, with the court itself sitting in open session, rather than behind closed doors or in camera, and that the application invokes Section 36(3) of the Constitution, which guarantees public proceedings. However, they argued that the term “public” in this context refers to a place that is accessible to the public.

The respondents also brought up the fact that in cases involving class actions, the individuals represented by the plaintiffs or petitioners are always specified in the initial filing. This was another point that was brought up by the respondents. On the other hand, in the context of this application, the audience for whom it is intended to be presented is neither defined nor specified.

The respondents, in the end, rejected the idea that the court should act as a stage for the public’s entertainment and emphasized how important it is to keep the court as a solemn, disciplined, and honorable institution. They stated once again that in their opinion, the motion is an improper use of the court’s resources and procedures.