President-elect Bola Tinubu and the Vice President-elect, Kashim Shettima, have described the application by Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party for a live broadcast of electoral petition proceedings as an “abuse of the processes of this honourable court.”
They urged the Presidential Election Petition Court to dismiss the application, arguing that the relief sought by the applicants is not such that the court could grant it.
In their response to the application, they said, “With much respect to the petitioners, the motion is an abuse of the processes of this honourable court.”
They further said the request of Atiku and his party should not be granted because 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.”
Tinubu and Shettima responded through their team of lawyers, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun.They stated, in the counter affidavit, that the application relates to policy formulation of the court, which is outside the PEPC’s jurisdiction as constituted.
“The application also 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.
“The application touches on the administrative functions, which are exclusively reserved for the President of the Court of Appeal.
“The application is aimed at dissipating the precious judicial time of this honourable court.
“The said application does not have any bearing with the petition filed by the petitioners before this honourable court.
“It is in the interest of justice for this honourable court to dismiss the said application filed by the petitioners,” they said.
In an attached written address, the respondents faulted the applicants’ reference to the fact that virtual proceedings were allowed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They argued that Atiku and the PDP failed to point out to the fact that practice directions were made by the respective courts for the exercise.
“Another angle to this very curious application is the invitation it extends to the court to make an order that it cannot supervise.
“The position of the law remains, and we do submit that the court, like nature, does not make an order in vain, or an order which is incapable of enforcement,” the respondents stated. (DailyTrust)