The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja on Thursday told Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, lead counsel to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, that he was citing old laws to oppose the request by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, for live coverage of the Court’s proceedings.
Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, drew the attention of Olanipekun to a portion of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers being wrongfully cited to justify Tinubu’s opposition to live coverage of proceedings in Atiku’s petition.
At Thursday’s proceedings, Tinubu, APC, and INEC separately kicked against the request by Atiku for live coverage of the court proceedings to engender public trust and confidence in the court.
Atiku, through his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche SAN, cited the petition’s monumental importance nationally and internationally to support his demand for a live telecast of the proceedings.
But in his bid to justify his vehement opposition, Olanipekun had cited paragraph 4.6 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, which he claimed prohibited Judicial Officers from broadcasting or televising proceedings during the court session.
He cited the disputed law following the submissions by Chief Chris Uche SAN, who stated that no law or statute bars the live telecast of court proceedings.
As Olanipekun was about to read the portion of the law, Justice Tsammani intervened and told the legal luminary that he was citing the wrong law.
Justice Tsammani told Olanipekun SAN that the portion he was citing to justify his arguments against live coverage had been amended and the portion being cited had been deleted completely.
The Chairman of the Court maintained that the portion claimed by Chief Olanipekun SAN was no longer in the new Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers and, as such, was not applicable.
While making a case for a live broadcast of Atiku’s petition, Uche SAN drew the attention of the Court to Justice Oputa’s Panel of Inquiry, which was telecast live and hailed all around the country.
The Senior lawyer said no respondent would be prejudiced if the petition was broadcast live.
Specifically, he said that there was no single law or statute against the live broadcast of court proceedings, adding that it has never been done before and should not be misconstrued to mean that it cannot be done this time.
The submissions of Uche SAN had drawn thunderous applause from the crowd, who clapped for some minutes before the court announced that clapping was not allowed in Courts.
Atiku had approached the Court, hearing his case against the outcome of the February 25 presidential polls, for an order to allow live broadcast of the day-to-day proceedings regarding his petition because of its monumental importance.
In the application, Atiku and the PDP specifically prayed to the tribunal for “An order Directing the Court’s Registry and the parties on modalities for admission of Media Practitioners and their Equipment into the courtroom.”
The application filed on their behalf by their team of lawyers led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, is predicated, amongst other grounds, on the fact that The matter before the Honourable Court is a dispute over the outcome of the Presidential Election held on 25th February 2023, a matter of national concern and public interest, involving citizens and voters in the 36 States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, who voted and participated in the said election; and the International Community as regards the workings of Nigeria’s Electoral Process”.
They contended that a unique electoral dispute with a peculiar constitutional dimension is a matter of public interest, and millions of Nigerian citizens and voters are stakeholders with a constitutional right to receive.
The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC), in response, kicked against the request of the former Vice President
for the live telecast of his petition challenging the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the 2023 presidential election.
In their separate objections, the trio insisted that the solemn nature of the court would be put in jeopardy if granted.
Tinubu, in his vehement objections raised by Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN on his behalf, said that Atiku’s request was not only surprising but dangerous as it could prejudice the Court itself.
Olanipekun said that the request for live coverage can turn the Court into a football stadium, a crusade ground a theatre or film grounds where all manners of telecast could be permitted.
The Senior lawyer said that the Court should not grant an order that cannot be enforced or supervised, adding that the present moment is not the best time to grant such a request.
Lateef Fagbemi SAN, who opposed the request on behalf of APC, faulted it, adding that the facility and policy documents are not present for the application to be granted.
Fagbemi insisted that Atiku did not deserve to be granted the request
The electoral body, in its own objections by its counsel, Abubakar Balarabe Mahmoud SAN, said that the Courtroom is for serious business and not a marketplace where anything goes, adding that the request for live coverage is unnecessary and uncalled for and should not be granted.
Meanwhile, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, the court’s chairman, has reserved a ruling on the motion for a later date.
