According to Vanguard, President-elect Bola Tinubu spoke out against the request for a live broadcast of the ongoing proceedings on petitions to annul his election. In a May 5 application, 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 presidential 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…..CONTINUE READING...CONTINUE READING
” He argued that the case concerned the interests of citizens and voters of the 36 states of the federation and the Territory of the Federal Capital of Abu AbAtiku, and the PDP insisted 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. In the Labour Party, L.P. candidate Peter Obi, who also petitioned to contest the election results, has since fallen behind Atiku’s application.
In separate proceedings filed in court, both Tinubu and the APC appealed to the court to dismiss Atiku’s application, which they described as an abuse of the legal process. Tinubu accused Atiku of deliberately trying to expose the judiciary to public humiliation in an affidavit presented to Vice President-elect Kashim Shettima in contradiction. According to him, the dish is “not a podium or soap box. It is also a stadium or a theater. It is not a gathering for public entertainment.” Respondents said that Atiku’s application had no effect on the petition and insisted that it was only intended to disperse court time; they pointed out that Atiku did not realize that the virtual justice system introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic was supported.
Another aspect of this very particular request is the request to the court to issue an order that cannot be supervised. “The state of the law remains, and we argue that the court does not, as is nature, issue frivolous orders or an order that is unenforceable,” the respondents added. In addition, they argued that the question was at best “academic, very boring, very useless, very time-consuming, very unusual, and very impromptu”, especially from several petitioners who should pray for a quick consideration of their petition.”
“The petitioners submitted their application in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 36 of the Constitution, which provides that the judicial proceedings be conducted in public.” “The term “public” within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Article 36 of the Constitution is defined by a large number of judicial authorities as referring to a place where members of the public have unhindered access and the court itself is sitting behind open doors, not behind closed doors.” Even in situations where a class action is filed, the specific persons who make up the class represented by the plaintiffs or claimants are always defined in the formation process.
” In this application, the audience, at the behest of which this application was submitted, is not defined, known, or identifiable. Moreover, it is our opinion that the court should always remain and be what it is, what it should be, and what is expected of it: a quiet, disciplined, sacred, serene, honorable, and decent institution and place.” It’s not a podium or a soapbox. It is also a stadium or a theater.
It is not an arena for “public”entertainment.”With all due respect to the petitioners, the claim is an abuse of the procedures of this honorable court,” Tinubu said. For its part, the APC, through its team of lawyers led by Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, informed the court that, contrary to what Atiku said, the presidential election “is not a matter of national interest” and insisted that the elections were “well managed by INEC with millions of voters present”.
He argued that the court proceedings had already been fairly covered by the media. “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 said in a statement. added.
It was further argued that the live broadcast would “expose the court’s proceedings to unnecessarily sensational and inappropriate social media lawsuits that are missing at the heart of the serious matter before the court”. The APC continued its argument against the motion, arguing that live television coverage of the proceedings would “deny witness protection, expose them to avoidable criticism, and put them in an untenable position.”
The live television broadcast of the acts of the electoral court will only cause unnecessary tension, violence, and unrest among the public, which could lead to a violation of the peace,” the APC said, although it appealed to the court to dismiss the application justice.In the meantime, a five-member panel led by Judge Haruna Tasmani had scheduled the preparatory session to continue on Thursday on a petition by Atiku…..CONTINUE READING
