Bola Tinubu, the president-elect, and Kashim Shettima, the vice president-elect, have pleaded with the Presidential Election Petition Court to deny Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party’s request for a live broadcast of the proceedings.
They contended that the petitioners’ requests for relief were not ones the court could approve.
“With much respect to the petitioners, the motion is an abuse of the processes of this honourable court,” the respondents stated.
In addition to dismissing the application as frivolous, they argued that the court should not be used as a stage, stadium, or theater for entertainment of the general public.
They questioned why a petitioner would submit an application in order to divert the court’s attention and squander its limited time through their team of attorneys, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun.
They claimed in the counter affidavit that the application related to judicial policymaking, which is outside the purview of the PEPC in its current configuration.
“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.
“The application touches on the administrative functions, which are exclusively reserved for the President of the Court of Appeal.
“The application is aimed at dissipating the precious judicial time of this honourable court.
“The said application does not have any bearing with the petition filed by the petitioners before this honourable court.
“It is in the interest of justice for this honourable court to dismiss the said application filed by the petitioners,” they said.
The applicants’ allusion to the fact that virtual proceedings were permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic was criticized by the respondents in an appended written address.
They claimed that Atiku and his party neglected to inform the court that practice directives had been issued by the relevant courts for the procedure.
“Another angle to this very curious application is the invitation it extends to the court to make an order that it cannot supervise.
“The position of the law remains, and we do submit that the court, like nature, does not make an order in vain, or an order which is incapable of enforcement,” the respondents stated.
More specifically, they claimed that “At best, this application is academic, very otiose, extremely superfluous, extremely time-wasting, most uncommon, and quite unexpected, especially from a group of petitioners, who should be hoping for the swift trial of their petition.
“Petitioners have brought their application under Section 36(3) of the Constitution which provides that the proceedings of a court/tribunal shall be held in public.
“The word ‘public’ as applied under Section 36(3) of the Constitution has been defined in a plethora of judicial authorities to mean a place where members of the public have unhindered access, and the court itself, sitting behind open doors, not in the camera.
“Even in situations where a class action is presented, the particular people constituting the class being represented by the plaintiffs or petitioners are always defined in the originating process.
“Here, in this application, the public at whose behest this application has been presented is not defined, not known, not discernable.
“Beyond all these, it is our submission 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 serene, disciplined, hallowed, tranquil, honourable and decorous institution and place.
“It is not a rostrum or a soapbox. It is not also a stadium or theatre. It is not an arena for ‘public’ entertainment.
“With much respect to the petitioners, the motion is an abuse of the processes of this honourable court.”
