Bola Tinubu, the President-elect, opposes the PDP and Atiku Abubakar‘s request for a live broadcast of the PEPC proceedings in Abuja. He and Vice President-elect Kashim Shettima believe the application is an abuse of the court’s processes, as it is not a platform for political speeches.
They asked the PEPC to dismiss the application, stating that the relief sought could not be granted by the court. They also argued that the motion is an abuse of the court’s processes. He said the court is not a platform for Atiku and his party’s request, nor is it a stadium or theatre. Not for public entertainment, linked to court policy formation. “The application discusses the powers and jurisdiction assigned to the President of the Court of Appeal by the Constitution, which this court cannot currently address.”
Also Read: Atiku to Bola Ahmed Tinubu: I am Drug Free Unlike You
“The application concerns administrative functions reserved for the President of the Court of Appeal and is an attempt to waste judicial time.” “The application has no relevance to the petition before this court. It is just for this court to reject the petitioner’s request for the sake of justice,” stated the petitioners.
The respondents criticized the applicants’ reference to virtual proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that practice directions were made by courts. They also highlighted that the application invites the court to make an unsupervisable order. “The law remains, and the court does not make useless orders. The petitioners’ application is unnecessary, time-wasting, and unexpected. They should be praying for an expeditious trial of their petition.”
Petitioners seek public court proceedings under Section 36(3) of the Constitution. “Public” means accessible to the public and not in-camera, as defined by judicial authorities. “Class action defines individuals represented, but the public in this case is unknown.” The court of law must remain a disciplined and decorous place, not a soapbox. Not a stadium or theatre, nor an arena for public entertainment. “Respectfully, the motion is an abuse of court processes,” the respondents argued.
