The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Atiku Abubakar’s petition for a live broadcast of the election tribunal petition hearings have faced opposition from President-elect Bola Tinubu.
Tinubu and the Vice-President-elect, Kashim Shettima, responded to the application by calling it an “abuse of the processes of this honourable court” through a team of their solicitors led by Chief Wole Olanipekun.
They implored the Presidential Election Petition Court to reject the plea, contending that the applicants’ requests for relief were not ones the court could accept.
With all due respect to the petitioners, the motion is a misuse of this honourable court’s procedures, the respondents declared.
They added that the court “is not a rostrum or a soapbox” and that Atiku and his party’s plea should not be denied. It is not also a theatre or a stadium. It is not an entertainment venue for the “public.”
They claimed in the counter affidavit that the application was related to judicial policymaking, which falls outside the purview of the PEPC in its current structure.
“The application also discusses the constitutionally granted authority and jurisdiction granted to the President of the Court of Appeals, which this honourable court cannot hear in its current form.”
“The application makes reference to administrative duties that are solely the responsibility of the President of the Court of Appeal.
“The application aims to waste this honourable court’s valuable judicial time.
“The petition that the petitioners filed with this honourable court has nothing to do with the stated application”, the respondents argued.
They claimed that the court should reject the petitioners’ application since doing so would serve the interests of justice.
The respondents criticised the applicants’ mention of the fact that virtual proceedings were permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic in an appended written address.
They said that Atiku and the PDP had overlooked the fact that the relevant courts had issued practise directives for the exercise.
“This application’s call to the court to issue an order that it cannot oversee presents another viewpoint to consider.
The respondents said, “The law’s position remains, and we do argue that the court, like nature, does not make an order in vain, or an order that cannot be enforced.
They continued, “At best, this application is academic, extremely otiose, superfluous, time-consuming, most unusual, and most unexpected, especially coming from a group of petitioners who ought to be praying for the swift trial of their petition.
“Petitioners have filed their application pursuant to Section 36(3) of the Constitution, which mandates that court and tribunal proceedings be open to the public.
“The term “public,” as used in Section 36(3) of the Constitution, has been used in a wide range of judicial authorities to include 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.
“Even in circumstances where a class action is brought, the specific individuals who make up the class that the plaintiffs or petitioners are representing are always identified in the originating procedure.
The public whose request this application was made is not identified, known, or discernible in this application.
Despite all of these, we argue that the court of law must and should always be what it is, what it should be, and what is supposed to be: a calm, orderly, reverent, peaceful, honourable, and dignified institution and place.
“With all due respect to the petitioners, the move represents an abuse of this honourable court’s procedures,” Tinubu’s representatives stated.