Headlines
No Live Coverage, Tribunal Rules, Throws Out Atiku, Obi’s Petition
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 Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five member panel dismissed as lacking in merit, the application which was brought before it by the two major candidates that are challenging the outcome of the presidential election that held on February 25.
The court held that no regulatory framework or policy direction, permitted it to grant such application.
It held that allowing cameras in the court room is a major judicial policy that must be supported by the law.
“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.
Whereas it was a former Vice President and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, who came second in the election, that initially made the request for a live coverage, subsequently, candidate of the Labour Party, Mr. Peter Obi, threw his weight behind the demand for live broadcast of proceedings of the court on the petitions.
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 he said voted and participated in the presidential poll.
Atiku and the PDP insisted that their case against Tinubu, being a unique electoral dispute with a peculiar constitutional dimension, they said it was a matter of public interest in which millions of Nigerian citizens and voters are stakeholders, with the constitutional right to be part of the proceedings.
They specifically applied for; “An order, directing the Court’s Registry and the parties on modalities for admission of Media Practitioners and their Equipments into the courtroom”.
“With the huge and tremendous technological advances and developments in Nigeria and beyond, including the current trend by this Honourable Court towards embracing electronic procedures, virtual hearing and electronic filing, a departure from the Rules to allow a regulated televising of the proceedings in this matter is in consonance with the maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.
“Televising court proceedings is not alien to this Honourable Court, and will enhance public confidence”, the petitioners added.
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.
They stressed that Atiku failed to realise that the virtual court system that was adopted during the Covid-19 pandemic, was backed by a practice direction that was administratively issued by the President of the Court of Appeal.
“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 added.
Besides, they argued that the application was at best, “academic, very otiose, very unnecessary, very time-wasting, most unusual and most unexpected, particularly, from a set of petitioners, who should be praying for the expeditious trial of their petition.”
“Petitioners have brought their application under Section 36(3) of the Constitution which provides that the proceedings of a court/tribunal shall be held in public.
“The word ‘public’ as applied under Section 36(3) of the Constitution has been defined in a plethora of judicial authorities to mean a place where members of the public have unhindered access, and the court itself, sitting behind open doors, not in the camera.
“Even in situations where a class action is presented, the particular people constituting the class being represented by the plaintiffs or petitioners are always defined in the originating process.
“Here, in this application, the public at whose behest this application has been presented is not defined, not known, not discernable.
“Beyond all these, it is our submission that the court of law must and should always remain what it is, what it should be and what it is expected to be: a serene, disciplined, hallowed, tranquil, honourable and decorous institution and place.
“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,” Tinubu argued.
On its part, APC, through its team of lawyers led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, told the court that contrary to Atiku’s claim, the presidential election “is not subject matter of any national concern”, insisting that the election was “well managed by INEC with turnout of voters in their millions”.
It argued that proceedings of the court was already being adequately coveted by the media.
“There is nothing unique or peculiar in the electoral dispute that emanated from the outcome of the 25th February 2023 election that is different from the earlier five presidential elections in the country since the Advent of the Fourth Republic and if anything, the February 25 2023 election referred to, has the least litigation since 1999,” APC added.
It further argued that live broadcast “will subject the proceedings of the court to unnecessary sensationalism and undue social media trial, which distracts from the kernel of the serious business before the court.”
Continuing its argument against the application, APC, averred that allowing live televising of the proceedings, “will defeat the protection afforded to witnesses, expose them to avoidable censure and put them in a precarious situation.
“Televising of election tribunal proceedings (live) will only cause unnecessary tension, violence and unrest among the public, which may lead to breach of peace”, APC added, even as it urged the court to dismiss the application in the interest of justice.
INEC equally opposed live broadcast of the proceedings.
The Vanguard
An Abuja High Court has cleared the way for the implementation of Nigeria’s new tax regime scheduled to commence on January 1, 2026, dismissing a suit seeking to halt the programme.
The ruling gives the Federal government, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and the National Assembly full legal backing to proceed with the take-off of the new tax laws.
The suit was filed by the Incorporated Trustees of African Initiative for Abuse of Public Trustees, which dragged the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the President, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives and the National Assembly before the court over alleged discrepancies in the recently enacted tax laws.
In an ex-parte motion, the plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the Federal Government, FIRS, the National Assembly and related agencies from implementing or enforcing the provisions of the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025; Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025; Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2025; and the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2025, pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The group also asked the court to restrain the President from implementing the laws in any part of the federation pending the hearing of its motion on notice.
However, in a ruling delivered on Tuesday, Justice Kawu struck out the application, holding that it lacked merit and failed to establish sufficient legal grounds to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate how the implementation of the new tax laws would occasion irreparable harm or violate any provision of the Constitution, stressing that matters of fiscal policy and economic reforms fall squarely within the powers of government.
Justice Kawu further held that once a law has been duly enacted and gazetted, any alleged errors or controversies can only be addressed through legislative amendment or a substantive court order, noting that disagreements over tax laws cannot stop the implementation of an existing law.
Consequently, the court affirmed that there was no legal impediment to the commencement of the new tax regime and directed that implementation should proceed as scheduled from January 1, 2026.
The new tax regime is anchored on four landmark tax reform bills signed into law in 2025 as part of the Federal Government’s broader fiscal and economic reform agenda aimed at boosting revenue, simplifying the tax system and reducing leakages.
The laws — the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025, Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025, Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2025, and the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act, 2025 — consolidate and replace several existing tax statutes, including laws governing companies income tax, personal income tax, value added tax, capital gains tax and stamp duties.
Key elements of the reforms include the harmonisation of multiple taxes into a more streamlined framework, expansion of the tax base, protection for low-income earners and small businesses, and the introduction of modern, technology-driven tax administration systems such as digital filing and electronic compliance monitoring.
The reforms also provide for the restructuring of federal tax administration, including the creation of the Nigeria Revenue Service, to strengthen efficiency, coordination and revenue collection across government levels.
While the Federal government has described the reforms as critical to stabilising public finances and funding infrastructure and social services, the laws have generated intense public debate, with some civil society groups and political actors alleging discrepancies between the versions passed by the National Assembly and those later gazetted.
These concerns sparked calls for suspension, re-gazetting and legal action, culminating in the suit dismissed by the Abuja High Court.
Reacting to the judgment, stakeholders described the ruling as a major boost for the reforms, saying it has removed all legal obstacles that could have delayed the implementation of the new tax framework.
Former governor of Anambra State, presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the 2023 election, Mr. Peter Obi, has officially defected to the coalition-backed African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Obi announced the decision on Tuesday at an event held at the Nike Lake Resort, Enugu.
“We are ending this year with the hope that in 2026 we will begin a rescue journey,” Obi said.
The National Chairman of the ADC, David Mark, was among the attendees.
United States Representative Riley Moors has said further military strikes against Islamic State-linked militants in Nigeria could follow recent operations ordered by President Donald Trump, describing the actions as aimed at improving security and protecting Christian communities facing violence.
Moore made the remarks during a televised interview in which he addressed U.S. military strikes carried out on Christmas Day against militant targets in North-west Nigeria.
The strikes were conducted in coordination with the Nigerian government, according to U.S. and Nigerian officials.
“President Trump is not trying to bring war to Nigeria, he’s bringing peace and security to Nigeria and to the thousands of Christians who face horrific violence and death,” Moore said.
He said the Christmas Day strikes against Islamic State affiliates had provided hope to Christians in Nigeria, particularly in areas affected by repeated attacks during past festive periods.
According to U.S. authorities, the strikes targeted camps used by Islamic State-linked groups operating in parts of north-west Nigeria.
Nigerian officials confirmed that the operation was carried out with intelligence support from Nigerian security agencies as part of ongoing counter-terrorism cooperation between both countries.
The United States Africa Command said the operation was intended to degrade the operational capacity of extremist groups responsible for attacks on civilians and security forces.
Nigerian authorities have described the targeted groups as a threat to national security, noting their involvement in killings, kidnappings and raids on rural communities.
Moore said the strikes marked a shift from previous years in which attacks were carried out against civilians during the Christmas period. He said the U.S. administration was focused on preventing further violence by targeting militant groups before they could launch attacks.
U.S. officials have said the military action was carried out with the consent of the Nigerian government and formed part of broader security cooperation between the two countries. Nigeria has received intelligence, training and logistical support from international partners as it seeks to contain militant activity.
Moore had previously called for stronger international attention to attacks on Christian communities in Nigeria and has urged continued U.S. engagement in addressing extremist violence. He said further action would depend on developments on the ground and continued coordination with Nigerian authorities.
Nigerian officials have maintained that counter-terrorism operations are directed at armed groups threatening civilians, regardless of religion, and have reiterated their commitment to restoring security across affected regions.
