INEC gangs up with Tinubu, who says tribunal not a theatre of entertainment
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) is against live broadcast of Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) proceedings requested by Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), according to filings at the tribunal.
Part of Tinubu’s argument filed by his lawyers described the application from the petitioners as frivolous and a bid to waste time, and urged the tribunal to dismiss it because the court is not a theatre of entertainment.
A counter affidavit filed against the application by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) made the same submission and asked the court to reject the request.
Both Tinubu and his running mate Kashim Shettima argued the court is not a soapbox, stadium or theatre where the public should be entertained.
“With much respect to the petitioners, the motion is an abuse of the processes of this honourable court,” the respondents deposed.
A joint response filed on Monday by their team of lawyers, led by Wole Olanipekun, SAN, wondered why a petitioner who desires prompt hearing would file an application intended solely to distract the court and waste its precious time.
They insisted in their counter affidavit the relief sought by the applicants is not such that the court could grant.
_________________________________________________________________
Related articles:
Atiku pressures tribunal to allow live broadcast of proceedings
Atiku alleges Tinubu scheming to bribe tribunal members
Amadi joins voices demanding live transmission of tribunal hearing
__________________________________________________________________
Policy formulation of court
Tinubu added the application relates to policy formulation of the court, which is outside the jurisdiction of the PEPT as constituted, per reporting by The Nation.
“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.
Comparison with court proceedings during Covid-19
In an attached written address, the respondents faulted Atiku’s reference to the fact that virtual court proceedings were allowed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They argued Atiku and the PDP failed to draw the court’s attention to the fact that practice directions were made by the respective courts for that exercise.
They also noted it was only the heads of courts, rather than individual Judges or Justices, who drafted the practice directions.
“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.
“At the very best, this application is academic, very otiose, very unnecessary, very time-wasting, most unusual and most unexpected, particularly, from a set of petitioners, who should be praying for the expeditious 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 opened doors, not in 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.”