Candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC), in the February 25th presidential election, Bola Tinubu and Sen. Kashim Shettima, have criticized the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Atiku Abubakar's application for a live broadcast of court proceedings, deeming it frivolous and a waste of the court's time.
The PDP and Atiku had argued for the televising of the court proceedings, asserting that it would enhance transparency and instill faith in the judicial process among citizens. They specifically requested an order directing the court's registry and the involved parties to admit media practitioners and their equipment into the courtroom for live telecasts.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) opposed the application in its counter affidavit, urging the court to reject Atiku and the PDP's plea.
However, Tinubu and Shettima have jointly appealed to the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) to dismiss the application, asserting that the court is not a platform for entertainment, such as a soapbox, stadium, or theatre.
In their response filed by their legal team, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), the respondents emphasized that the petitioners' motion abuses the court's processes and aims to distract and consume valuable judicial time, rather than seeking a prompt hearing.
According to The Nation, the respondents argued that the relief sought by the applicants falls outside the jurisdiction of the PEPC, as it pertains to court policy formulation. They also noted that the application concerns the powers and jurisdiction vested in the President of the Court of Appeal, which the present court composition cannot entertain.
The respondents stated, "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 a written address attached to their response, Tinubu and Shettima criticized the applicants' reference to virtual proceedings allowed during the COVID-19 pandemic. They highlighted that the courts issued practice directions to regulate those proceedings, and it was the heads of courts, rather than individual judges or justices, who formulated them.
The respondents further contended that the application invites the court to issue an order it cannot supervise. They maintained that the court should not make orders in vain or ones that are unenforceable.
Tinubu and Shettima regarded the application as academic, unnecessary, time-wasting, and unexpected from petitioners who should prioritize an expeditious trial of their case. They underscored that the term "public" in Section 36(3) of the Constitution, under which the application was brought, denotes a place accessible to the general public, with the court conducting open proceedings rather than in camera.
The respondents concluded by stating, "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."