Court delivers verdict on Atiku, Obi’s request for live coverage of election petitions

The Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, on Monday, rejected request to allow its day-to-day proceedings on petitions seeking to nullify the outcome of the 2023 presidential election, to be televised.

The five member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani dismissed as lacking in merit, the application which was brought before it by the two major candidates, Atiku Abubakar of the People Democratic Party (PDP) and Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) challenging the outcome of the presidential election held on February 25.

It held that allowing cameras in the court room is a major judicial policy that must be supported by the law adding that no regulatory framework or policy direction, permitted it to grant such application.

In a unanimous decision, the panel held that the order sought by the petitioner was outside the scope of the petition, adding that televising of proceedings is not provided for in any law.

The panel stated that the court is created by the constitution and operates under the law by the Court of Appeal and that it was created to hear and determine the petitions before it and cannot act as a vanguard.

“The court can only be guided and act in accordance with the practice directions and procedures approved by the President of the Court of Appeal.

“We cannot permit a situation that may lead to dramatization of our proceedings,” Justice Tsammani held.

Besides, the court held that the request was not part of any relief in the petitions before it, saying it was merely hinged on sentimental claim that it would benefit the electorates.

It maintained that the petitioners failed to establish how televising the proceedings would advance their case, adding that such live broadcast would not have any utilitarian value to add to the determination of the petitions.

The PDP candidate, Atiku Abubakar, had filed an application on May 8 for an order to allow the live coverage of the daily court proceedings on the case brought against election of President-elect, Bola Tinubu.

The Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, had also followed suit with a similar application asking that proceedings of the tribunal be televised.

ADVERTISEMENT

The duo, through their lead lawyers, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, and Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, maintained that petitions they lodged to query the declaration of the candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, as winner of the election, 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, Abuja, who they said voted and participated in the presidential poll.

However, in separate processes they filed before the court, both Tinubu and the APC urged the court to dismiss the application which they described as an abuse of the legal process.

Tinubu, in a counter-affifavit he filed alongside the 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 that it was only aimed at dissipating the judicial time of the court.