Headlines
No Live Coverage, Tribunal Rules, Throws Out Atiku, Obi’s Petition
- /home/rhoncare/pointblank.ng/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
https://pointblank.ng/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Court.jpg&description=No Live Coverage, Tribunal Rules, Throws Out Atiku, Obi’s Petition', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
- Share
- Tweet /home/rhoncare/pointblank.ng/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 69
https://pointblank.ng/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Court.jpg&description=No Live Coverage, Tribunal Rules, Throws Out Atiku, Obi’s Petition', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
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
A chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and Deputy Director of the Presidential Campaign Council, Chief Dele Momodu, has described former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the most nationally formidable and experienced among the leading contenders for the 2027 presidential election.
Momodu said Atiku’s experience at the national level distinguishes him from President Bola Tinubu and former Anambra State Governor, Peter Obi.
He stated this on Wednesday during an interview on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, in Abeokuta.
“If you look at the antecedents of the three major candidates, between Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, you will see that Atiku is the most experienced. He has managed our country at the highest level,” he said.
Momodu traced Atiku’s political journey to the 1992 Social Democratic Party (SDP), presidential primary where he contested against late MKO Abiola and stepped down for him.
He said Atiku accepted the outcome without crisis even after he was not picked as Abiola’s running mate, describing it as a mark of true democratic temperament.
“He is the only one who started from around 1992, contested the SDP primary against Abiola and stepped down with uncommon equanimity. He did not make any noise,” Momodu said.
He noted that Atiku was among the founders of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and served as Vice-President from 1999 to 2007.
Comparing Atiku with Obi, Momodu argued that while Obi’s best was demonstrated in Anambra, Atiku’s was at the presidency level managing the national economy.
“Peter Obi has tried his best in Anambra, while Atiku’s best is at the level of vice president controlling the economy of Nigeria. The difference is clear. He has matured in experience and exposure,” he said.
Momodu also said President Tinubu’s experience was largely limited to Lagos.
“What I’m trying to say is that Tinubu’s experience was limited to Lagos, and that is why when he became president, he thought Nigeria was Lagos. And he has found out now that Nigeria is not Lagos,” he said.
He argued that the current economic hardship under the present administration did not show prosperity, insisting Atiku remained better positioned to lead the country.
“Well, we are yet to see that prosperity, and if yesterday would determine today and tomorrow, it is obvious that Tinubu should retire now and let someone else do it,” Momodu added.
DailyPost
President Bola Tinubu says he has no regrets over the removal of petrol subsidy and other economic reforms introduced by his administration, insisting that Nigeria could not borrow its way to greatness.
Meanwhile, Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, has warned Nigerians against returning to petrol subsidy. He said the backtrack could trigger capital flight, undermining investor confidence and pushing the Naira to N3,000, N3,500 or even N4,000 per dollar.
But the Director of Media and Publicity of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) Presidential Campaign Council (PCC), Kola Ologbondiyan, challenged Oyedele to publish the economic model behind his warning that a return to fuel subsidy could push the naira to N4,000 per dollar.
The President spoke on Monday during the City Boys Movement retreat in Abuja, where he charged members of the group to mobilise support for his administration ahead of the 2027 general elections, insisting that the country’s future mattered more than the ambition of any individual candidate.
“No regrets,” Tinubu said, insisting that his administration would not be pushed back from its reform agenda.
He took a swipe at his political opponents, promising to restore the petrol subsidy, saying Nigeria could no longer afford to pay the fuel subsidy, and warning that reversing the policy would take the country back to an unsustainable economic path.
Defending his decision to remove the subsidy on his first day in office, Tinubu said the country was on the verge of financial collapse and could no longer afford the policy’s cost.
Tinubu also sought to reassure Nigerians about the direction of the economy, arguing that growth was steady and that the sacrifices associated with his reforms would ultimately offer citizens a future worth believing in.
Oyedele disclosed during a press briefing of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Annual Meetings in Bangkok, Thailand, yesterday, that investors had repeatedly questioned whether the government would abandon its reforms ahead of the next election cycle.
Ruling out the reversal of the government’s economic reforms, he maintained that any signal that Tinubu’s administration was contemplating or reinstating the subsidy would immediately affect financial markets, raise borrowing costs and worsen economic pressures on households.
“In all the meetings I have had, I came to a conclusion that the markets, including the domestic market, which you can read from the capital market, and the international market, have largely written off the opposition in Nigeria as unserious.
“If, for any reason, the President were to say we are merely considering the return of fuel subsidy, capital would react immediately, airfares would struggle, the naira would come under severe pressure, potentially moving towards 3,000, 3,500 or even 4,000.
The very fuel people want subsidised would become far more expensive in Naira terms,” Oyedele warned.
However, Ologbondiyan accused the Federal government of using fear to discourage debate on fuel subsidy, insisting that Nigerians deserve evidence, not alarming projections, on the potential economic consequences of restoring the policy.
Speaking to journalists, he described the minister’s warning as scaremongering and demanded that the government explain how it arrived at the projected exchange rate.
“The Minister of Finance is merely scaremongering. He cannot claim that a return to fuel subsidy will cause the naira to depreciate to N4,000 to the dollar without showing Nigerians the model behind that projection,” he said.
He questioned the reliance on investors’ concerns to oppose a subsidy’s return, challenging the government to identify the sources of the projections and disclose their calculations.
President Bola Tinubu has expressed sadness over the death of Ambassador Patrick Dele Cole, describing him as a distinguished diplomat, journalist, politician and public servant.
Cole died at 86.
In a statement on Saturday, Tinubu said Cole devoted his life to national service and brought distinction to his work in diplomacy, journalism and politics.
“His career reflected the enduring value of dialogue, tact, mutual respect and the pursuit of shared interests in advancing national development and international cooperation,” the President said.
Tinubu noted Cole’s contributions to Nigeria’s media landscape, particularly as Managing Director of the Daily Times, where he upheld the role of the press in holding public officials accountable, speaking truth to power and strengthening democratic governance.
“His legacy in journalism and public life remains an enduring part of our national story,” he said.
The President said at 86, Cole witnessed defining moments in Nigeria’s history and contributed to national development, adding that his life stands as a testament to experience, principled engagement and commitment to public good.
Tinubu extended condolences to Cole’s family, friends, professional associates and all whose lives he touched, praying that memories of his remarkable life will bring comfort and strength.
“May Almighty God grant Ambassador Cole eternal rest and give his family and all who mourn him the fortitude to bear this profound loss,” he said.
