Why Tinubu and INEC Don’t Want Tribunal Proceedings to be Broadcast Live

The arguments and counter-arguments of the parties involved in the petition

Patrick OdeyMay 18, 2023

3 minutes read

Bola Tinubu, the President-elect, his running mate Kashim Shettima, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have urged the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) to dismiss the application by Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for a live broadcast of proceedings.

The application was filed by Atiku and PDP, who are challenging the outcome of the 2023 presidential election, which was won by Tinubu and Shettima of the All Progressives Congress (APC). The application was also backed by the Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi.

In their response to the application filed on Monday by their team of lawyers, led by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Tinubu and Shettima described it as frivolous and a bid to waste the court’s time.

They argued that the court is not a soapbox, stadium, or theatre where the public should be entertained. They said that the application is an abuse of the processes of the presidential election petition tribunal.

They contended that the relief sought by the applicants is not such that the court could grant, adding that the application relates to policy formulation of the court, which is outside the PEPC’s jurisdiction as constituted.

They said that the application also touches on the powers and jurisdiction invested in the President of the Court of Appeal by the Constitution, over which this honourable court as presently constituted cannot entertain.

They said that the application touches on administrative functions, which are exclusively reserved for the President of the Court of Appeal.

They said that the application is aimed at dissipating the precious judicial time of this honourable court.

They said that the said application does not have any bearing with the petition filed by the petitioners before this honourable court.

They said that it is in the interest of justice for this honourable court to dismiss the said application filed by the petitioners.

Tinubu and Shettma challenged the applicants’ reliance on virtual proceedings that were allowed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

They argued that Atiku and his party did not show the court that the courts that allowed such proceedings had specific practice directions for them.

They also pointed out that it was the heads of courts, not individual judges or Justices, who made the practice directions.

“Another aspect of this strange application is that it asks the court to make an order that it cannot oversee.

“The law remains, and we submit, that the court, like nature, does not make an order that is useless, or an order that cannot be enforced,” the respondents stated.

Tinubu and Shettma added: “This application is pointless, very useless, very unnecessary, very time-consuming, very unusual and very surprising, especially from a group of petitioners who should be praying for a speedy trial of their petition.

“Petitioners have based their application on Section 36(3) of the Constitution which provides that the proceedings of a court/tribunal shall be held in public.

“The word ‘public’ as used in Section 36(3) of the Constitution has been defined in many judicial authorities to mean a place where members of the public can freely access, and the court itself, sitting with open doors, not in camera.

“Even in cases where a class action is filed, the specific people who make up the class represented by the plaintiffs or petitioners are always identified in the originating process.

“Here, in this application, the public for whose sake this application has been filed is not defined, not known, not clear.

“Beyond all these, we submit that the court of law must and should always remain what it is, what it should be and what it is expected to be: a calm, orderly, sacred, peaceful, respectable and dignified institution and place.

“It is not a platform or a soapbox. It is not a stadium or theatre. It is not a place for ‘public’ amusement.

“With respect to the petitioners, the motion is an abuse of the processes of this honourable court.”

Also, in its counter affidavit filed last on Monday, INEC raised similar arguments and asked the court to dismiss the application by Atiku and his party.