…As Atiku Abubakar, Obi, lose bid for live broadcast of PEPC proceedings***
The Supreme Court on Monday fixed May 26 to deliver judgment in an appeal by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against Sen. Ahmed Bola Tinubu and Alhaji Kashim Shettima of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
A five-member panel of Justices led by Justice John Okoro fixed the date after all the parties involved adopted and argued their briefs in the matter.
While Mr Babatunde Ogala SAN the Counsel to the APC asked the court to strike out the case since the 180 days stipulated by the law to hear the case has elapsed, Mr. Joe Agim SAN, Counsel to PDP held otherwise.
Agim said that the issue of the 180 days does not apply because the matter of double nomination was purely an illegality and because illegality cannot stand the court has the right to entertain the matter.
He said the apex court will determine whether there was a double nomination and also whether they have local standi.
“They have done that before, they did it in the case of Nwosu and APC and they will do it again’’, Agim added.
The counsels to the first respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr. Adebiyi Adetosoye and Ogala representing the APC, respectively, asked that the case be dismissed and heavy costs awarded against the appellant.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has dismissed the appeal filed by the PDP seeking the disqualification of Tinubu and Shettima as the presidential and vice-presidential candidates of the APC in the February 25 election.
The PDP had by their appeal marked: CA/ABJ/CV/108/2023 urged the appellate court to reverse the January 13 judgment by Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja which dismissed its suit on the grounds that the PDP lacked locus standi to have instituted the suit.
NAN reports that in the unanimous judgment on Friday, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, held, in the lead judgment that the PDP failed to establish its locus standi.
Justice James Abundaga, who agreed with the submissions of lawyers to the respondents, including Thomas Ojo of Lateef Fagbemi and Co, described the PDP as a busybody, who dabbled into issues that are internal affairs of the APC.
Respondents in the appeal are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the APC, Tinubu, and Shettima. Justice Abundaga held that the trial court was right to have held that the PDP failed to establish its locus standi.
“The appellant, having failed to disclose its locus standi, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed,” he said and proceeded to affirm the judgment of the Federal High Court.
Justice Abundaga awarded N5 million cost against the appellant’s lawyer, J. O. Olotu.
The PDP had, in the suit filed on July 28, 2022, challenged the validity of the Tinubu/Shettima ticket for the 2023 presidential election, arguing that Shettima’s nomination as the running mate was in breach of the provisions of Sections 29(1), 33, 35 and 84{1)}(2)} of the Electoral Act, 2022 (as amended).
They claimed that Shettima had double nominations, the PDP argued that Shettima’s nomination as a vice-presidential candidate as well as the candidate for the Borno Central Senatorial seat contravened the law.
In another development, the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Monday in Abuja, rejected the request by the Presidential Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar for a live broadcast of proceedings of the court.
The court in a similar ruling, dismissed the application of the Labour Party, and its presidential candidate,Mr Peter Obi for live broadcast of court proceedings.
In a unanimous decision, the five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani held that the court, as constituted, did not have the powers or vires to make such an order since it was an issue of policy.
The judges held that such an order needed to be planned for ahead of time and budgeted for.
Besides the five judges agreed that both the team of Atiku and Obi did not tell the court what they stood to lose if the request was not granted.
The judges held that live televising of proceedings was not provided for in any law.
They held that the court was created to hear election petitions and anything outside of that was going beyond its scope.
The court also held that the request was novel and not supported by any law in the country presently.
Justice Tsammani also said that the request was not rooted in the petition Atiku or Obi filed before the court.
The court ruled that the request was capable of turning the court into a stadium or market square and that such must not be allowed.
Besides, Justice Tsammani held that granting the request for a live telecast of the proceedings of the petitions would not add any value to the petition.
“The undue pressure of allowing cameras into the courtroom should be avoided as the impact it would have on witnesses can not be predicted.
“The court is created to find out the truth and should be allowed to do so,” Justice Tsammani said.
The judge said that in the final analysis, the petition was without merit and subsequently dismissed it.
Atiku and Obi had approached the court hearing their petition against the outcome of the Feb. 25 presidential polls for an order allowing live broadcast of the day-to-day proceedings.
They both said the request for live broadcast was predicated on the grounds that the petitions were of monumental importance to the nation.
Atiku and the PDP as well as Obi and the Labour Party had in their separate applications specifically prayed the court for an order directing the court’s registry and the parties on modalities for admission of media practitioners and their equipment into the courtroom.
