Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president-elect, and Kashim Shettima, his vice, have requested the Presidential Election Petition Court to dismiss Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party’s request for a live broadcast of the proceedings.
They stated that the court cannot grant the relief requested by the applicants and that the motion is an abuse of the court’s processes. The respondents also described the application as frivolous and argued that the court is not a platform for entertainment. They further mentioned that the application is outside the court’s jurisdiction, relating to policy formulation.
The duo, through their team of lawyers, led by Wole Olanipekun, argued that the relief sought by the applicants are not such that the court could grant it. “With much respect to the petitioners, the motion is an abuse of the processes of this honourable court,” the respondents stated.
According to the counter affidavit from Tinubu’s legal team, the application relates to policy formulation of the court, which is outside the PEPC’s jurisdiction as constituted.
“The application 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,” it read in part. “The application touches on the administrative functions exclusively reserved for the President of the Court of Appeal.
“It is in the interest of justice for this honourable court to dismiss the said application filed by the petitioners,” they said.
Read also: Election tribunal: Court adjourns Obi’s case to Friday, May 19
In an attached written address, the respondents faulted the applicants’ reference to virtual proceedings allowed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The APC legal team disagreed with the applicants’ argument in a written address attached to their response. They pointed out that although virtual proceedings were allowed during the COVID-19 pandemic, Atiku and his party failed to acknowledge that the courts had already issued practice directions for such proceedings.
Similarly, the respondents noted that the applicants’ request was inviting the court to issue an order that it could not effectively oversee, emphasising that the court, like nature, does not issue meaningless or unenforceable orders, as per the established legal principle.
