This post has already been read 647 times!
• As S’Court fixes May 26 for ruling on PDP’s quest for Tinubu’s disqualification
• Protesters storm court premises, demand transparency
The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja, yesterday, dismissed request by the presidential candidate of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, and his Labour Party (LP) counterpart, Peter Obi, for live streaming of proceedings of their petition against the election and declaration of Bola Tinubu as winner of the February 25, 2023 presidential election.
The court, in a unanimous ruling delivered by its chairman, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, dismissed the application for lacking merit, saying the request was novel but not supported by any law in the country.
Tsammani said the request was capable of turning the court to a stadium or market square, and that such must, for now, be disallowed. He held that live telecast of proceedings would not add value to the petition.
The duo, through their lead lawyers, Chris Uche, SAN, and Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, maintained that the petition they lodged, querying declaration of the candidate of All Progressives Congress (APC), Bola Tinubu, as winner, was “a matter of monumental national concern and public interest.”
They argued that the case involved the interest of citizens and electorates in the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, who voted in the poll.
However, in separate processes they filed before the court, Tinubu and the APC urged the court to dismiss the application, which they described as an abuse of legal process.
Tinubu, in a counter-affidavit he filed alongside Vice President-elect, Kashim Shettima, accused Atiku of deliberately attempting to expose the judiciary to public opprobrium.
According to them, 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.”
The respondents maintained that Atiku’s request had no bearing with the petition, insisting it was only aimed at dissipating the judicial time of the court.
They stressed that Atiku failed to realise that the virtual court system adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic was backed by a practice direction administratively issued by the President of the Court of Appeal.
Meanwhile, Tinubu and APC expressed opposition towards attempt at consolidating three separate petitions that seek to nullify outcome of the presidential election.
Tinubu, represented by his team of lawyers, led by Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, argued that merging all the petitions would impede his ability to adequately defend against the allegations raised by the petitioners.
“In the interest of justice, this court should exercise restraint in granting the order for consolidation,” Tinubu pleaded, emphasising that the petitioners raised various issues against him and sought different reliefs.
Recall that the PEPC had expressed intention to consolidate all the petitions.
The panel cited Paragraph 50 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, which grants it authority to merge and collectively determine petitions.
Consequently, the court granted permission for the petitioners’ counsel to consult their clients and report back with the outcome.
During subsequent proceedings, yesterday, Tinubu’s lawyer argued that the provision of the Electoral Act referred to by the court was not absolute.
He said: “There are issues raised in one petition that are not present in the others. The issues and evidentiary matters differ. It would be extremely difficult for us to consent to consolidation of the petitions.”
The court adjourned till today to present report on pre-hearing session in the petitions challenging Tinubu’s election.
Also, the Supreme Court fixed May 26 to deliver judgment in an appeal brought before it by the PDP, praying for the disqualification of Tinubu and Shettima.
The party, in the appeal, implored the apex court to reverse the decision of the intermediary court, led by Justice James Abundaga, which held that the party failed to establish its locus standi.
The apex court, led by Justice John Okoro, fixed the date after all the parties involved adopted and argued their briefs.
While counsel to the APC, Babatunde Ogala, SAN, asked the court to strike out the case, since the 180 days stipulated by law to hear the matter had elapsed, Joe Agim, SAN, who represented PDP argued that the issue of 180 days does not apply because the matter of double nomination was purely an illegality. And because illegality cannot stand, the court has the right to entertain the matter.
THIS was as protesters, yesterday, stormed the Court of Appeal premises in Abuja, where the PEPC was sitting, cautioning the judges against selling their ruling to the highest bidder.
They displayed placards with various inscriptions, demanding justice and the return of mandate allegedly stolen during the presidential election.
The protesters, who converged under the auspices of #Free Nigeria Movement, chanted slogans, advocating transparency at the tribunal.
Convener, Dr. Moses Paul, while addressing supporters, said the group was not backing any political party but stands in solidarity with the people of Nigeria, in defence of justice and good governance.
He said: “We are standing here and decisions are being made, right now, inside the Appeal Court. We are demanding the right thing be done.
“Any judge that decides to collect money or decides not to follow the Constitution of Nigeria, any judge that decides to do the wrong thing, so that Nigeria can go down, e no go better for una!”
