President-elect Tinubu Is Against Live Broadcasts Of Court Sessions
"It's abuse of court..."
Bola Tinubu, the incoming president, has voiced opposition to Atiku Abubakar's request for a live broadcast of the election petition processes. Atiku is the candidate for president of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Through a group of their attorneys, Tinubu and his vice, Kashim Shettima, responded to the application by calling it "an abuse of the procedures of this honorable court."
They pleaded with the Presidential Election Petition Court to reject the case, claiming that the applicants' requests for relief are not ones that the court is capable of granting.
"The application also touches on the powers and jurisdiction granted to the President of the Court of Appeal by the Constitution, which this honorable court as currently constituted cannot entertain," they claim.
The application focuses on executive duties that are solely the responsibility of the Court of Appeal President. This honorable court's valuable judicial time will be wasted by the application.
The petition that the petitioners have brought before this honorable court has nothing to do with the aforementioned application. The petitioners' claimed application should be rejected by this honorable court in the interest of justice.
The invitation it gives to the court to issue an order that it cannot oversee is another aspect of this highly peculiar application. The legal position is still in place, and we do contend that a court order cannot be rendered ineffective or in vain since, like nature, it must be enforceable.
At best, this application is academic, too otiose, superfluous, and time-consuming. It is also highly uncommon and unexpected, especially coming from the petitioners who, in their petition, should be pleading for a speedy trial.
The Constitution's Section 36(3) mandates that court and tribunal proceedings be open to the public. The petitioners have invoked this provision in their application.
According to a multiplicity of judicial authorities, the term "public" as used in Section 36(3) of the Constitution means both a location to which the general public has unrestricted access and the court itself, which is seated behind open doors and not in the camera.
The audience for whom this application has been produced is not identified, known, or discernible in this application.
Beyond all of these, we argue that the court of law must and should always continue to be what it is, what it ought to be, and what one would expect it to be: a calm, orderly, reverent, peaceful, honorable, and dignified institution and setting.
"It is not a rostrum or a soapbox. It is not also a stadium or theatre. It is not an arena for 'public' entertainment. With much respect to the petitioners, the motion is an abuse of the processes of this honourable court," he said.
No comments:
Leave comment here