Bola Tinubu, the incoming president, has opposed the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) and Atiku Abubakar’s request for a live broadcast of the election petition hearings.
Through a group of solicitors led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, Tinubu and his vice, Kashim Shettima, responded to the application by calling it a “abuse of the processes of this honourable court.”
Read Also: Labour Party Factions In Disagreement In Court As Tribunal Reconvenes
They pleaded with the Presidential Election Petition Court to reject the case, claiming that the petitioners’ requests for relief were too vague for the court to be able to grant them.
The respondents said;
With much respect to the petitioners, the motion is an abuse of the processes of this honourable court.
They further said the request of Atiku and his party should not be thrown out because the court “is not a rostrum or a soapbox. It is not also a stadium or theatre. It is not an arena for ‘public’ entertainment.”
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.
Tinubu noted;
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.
In an attached written address, the respondents criticised the applicants’ reference to the fact that virtual proceedings were allowed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They said that Atiku and the PDP had overlooked the fact that the relevant courts had issued practise directives for the procedure.
The respondents stated;
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.
