According to Vanguard, President-elect Bola Tinubu opposed the live broadcast of petitions to invalidate his election. The vice president of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and candidate in the February 25 presidential election, Atiku Abubakar, asked Abu PEP Atiku, who came second in the election, through his legal team led by Chris Umme, SAN, that the petition he filed against the president-elect was “a matter of national interest and public interest” in a May 5 application.
The PDP argued that their case against Tinubu, a unique electoral dispute with a special constitutional dimension, was a matter of public interest involving millions of Nigerian citizens and voters with the constitutional right to be part of the procedimento. Atiku’s application has surpassed Labour Party candidate Peter Obi’s.
Tinubu and the APC filed court petitions to deny Atiku’s application, calling it an abuse of the legal process. In a contradictory affidavit to Vice President-elect Kashim Shettima, Tinubu accused Atiku of seeking to humiliate the courts. The dish is “not a podium or soap box,” he said. Stadiums and theatres use it, and it’s not a party. Respondents stated Atiku’s application had no impact on the petition and was just meant to divide court time. They also noted that Atiku seemed to need to be made aware that the COVID-19 pandemic’s virtual justice system was supported.
This request also asks the court for an unsupervised order. “The state of the law continues, and we submit that the court does not, as is nature, issue frivolous or unenforceable orders,” the respondents said. They also noted that the query was “academic, extremely boring, very worthless, very time-consuming, very odd, and highly impromptu,”, especially from multiple petitioners who should hope for a swift response.
“The petitioners submitted their application in line with paragraph 3 of Article 36 of the Constitution, which requires public court proceedings.” “A considerable number of judicial authorities understand the term “public” within the sense of paragraph 3 of Article 36 of the Constitution as referring to a place where members of the public have unimpeded access and the court itself is sitting behind open doors, not closed doors.” Even in class actions, the plaintiffs or claimants define the class members.
The audience for this application is still being determined. The court should always be peaceful, disciplined, sacred, tranquil, dignified, and decent. No podium or soapbox, and Stadiums and theatres use it.
It’s not “public” entertainment.
“With all due respect to the petitioners, the claim is an abuse of this honourable court’s procedures,” Tinubu remarked. The APC, represented by Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, told the court that the presidential election “is not a matter of national interest” and that INEC “properly administered the polls with millions of voters present”.
He claimed the media had covered the judicial hearings fairly. “There is nothing unique or special about the electoral dispute arising from the outcome of the February 25, 2023 elections that differs from the previous five presidential elections in the country since the advent of the Fourth Republic, and if anything, the February 25, 2023 elections have less litigation than in 1999,” the APC stated.
The live broadcast will “expose the court’s processes to unduly sensational and inappropriate social media lawsuits that are missing at the centre of the serious problem before the court”. The APC continued to oppose the move, stating that live television broadcast would “deny witness protection, expose them to needless criticism, and place them in an uncomfortable position.”
“The live television broadcast of the electoral court’s acts will only produce unneeded stress, violence, and disturbance among the public, which could lead to a violation of the peace,” the APC argued, urging the court to dismiss the application.
On Thursday, a five-member panel chaired by Judge Haruna Tasmani continued the preparation session on Atiku’s plea.
