Court Adjourns To Friday On Presidential Election Petitions

The Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel, on Thursday, adjourned to continue further pre-hearing session on the petition, as well as to hear pending applications that were filed by the respondents.

Cited as respondents in the matter are the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, the President-elect, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, and the All Progressives Congress, APC.

The respondents are praying the court dismisses the case in its entirety or the alternative, striking out many paragraphs of the petition for being incompetent.

While adjourning the matter, Justice Tsammani said the court would on Friday, decide on the number of witnesses that would be allowed for each of the parties, the time to be allocated to them and the time to be allowed for the witnesses to be cross-examined.

He urged the parties to put heads together and agree on further modalities to be adopted to ensure a seamless and expeditious hearing of the petition.

Meanwhile, the panel has also reserved its ruling on the application that is seeking an order for a live broadcast of day-to-day proceedings on petitions challenging the declaration of Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, as the winner of the presidential election held on February 25.

It adjourned the ruling on the application that was filed by Atiku and the PDP after all the parties adopted their briefs of argument for and against the request.

Moving the application through his team of lawyers led by Chris Uche, SAN, Atiku, who came second at the election, maintained that the petition he lodged against Tinubu’s election, was of “a monumental national importance”.

Uche, SAN, argued that no single legislation in the country forbade the court from allowing its proceedings to be televised.

“Election cases are suis generis and the fact that it has never been done before does not mean that it cannot be done.

“My lords should remember that there has been an Oputa panel that was televised and the nation benefited immensely from it.

“The whole nation is interested in this matter and there is no one that will be prejudiced in any way.

“If the results that we are contending before this court was not transmitted, at least, let the proceedings be transmitted,” Uche, SAN, added, with his submission drawing applause from the gallery.

Not happy with the clapping, the Chairman of the panel, Justice Tsammani warned that such conduct was not permissible in court.

In his response, Uche, SAN, said: “My lords, I apologise on their behalf. This is exactly the point we are making here. If they have the benefit of watching the proceedings from home, they will learn that clapping is not allowed in the courtroom and even if they clap, it will be from their homes.

“Granting this application will even make counsel to be more committed and regulate themselves better, knowing that the eyes of the public are on what we are doing here. It is very important, for the development of the law,” Uche, SAN, pleaded.

On its part, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, through its lead counsel, Abubakar Mahmood, SAN, told the court that it had on May 12, filed a counter-affidavit to oppose the request for a live telecast of the proceedings.

Mahmood, SAN, sought the dismissal of the application on the premise that it must be backed by an administrative practice direction to be issued by the President of the Court of Appeal.

“My lords, the courtroom is a public place that is accessible to all, subject to the availability of space.

“Moreover, live streaming is different from televising. The one that is done in the United Kingdom is strictly managed by the court itself.

“The courtroom is not for theatrics. It is for serious business and in all jurisdictions where it is done, there are clear guidelines and procedures.

“We don’t want to be put under pressure of having cameras on our faces. The application is a matter of judicial policy that should be executed properly and not on an ad-hoc basis. It is unnecessary, uncalled for, and will defeat the essence of justice.

“We humbly urge my lords to dismiss it,” INEC’s lawyer added.

While opposing the application, Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Olanipeku, SAN, urged the court to dismiss it with substantial cost.

“The court is not a stadium. It is not a crusade ground or a marketplace. It is not a theater or a cinema. My lords we are not here for a circus show,” he added.

He argued that the code of conduct for legal practitioners barred lawyers from broadcasting, recording, or televising court proceedings.

“The court should not make an order that it cannot supervise. Our profession is a very solemn one. The UK only recently issued a practice direction for proceedings to be televised only during sentencing.

“It is rather embarrassing that the petitioners who should be concerned about the expeditious hearing of their case, chose to bring this application,” Olanipekun, SAN, added.

Likewise, counsel for the APC, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, argued that there is a difference between a trial in public and a trial by the public.

He accused Atiku of attempting to reduce the proceedings of the court to a Big Brother show.

“My lords if this application is not dismissed, it will get to the point where even when my lords are going to the toilet, the cameras will zoom in.

“That is what they do in the Big Brother show. The court is for serious business, so, we urge my lords to refuse the application”.

After it had listened to the parties, the Justice Tsammani-led panel reserved its ruling on the issue.

It will be recalled that Atiku and the PDP are in their joint petition marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023, praying the court to among other things, withdraw the Certificate of Return that was issued to the President-elect by INEC.

The petitioners maintained that the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the presidential election was “invalid because of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022”.

They further argued that Tinubu’s election was invalid because of corrupt practices, insisting that he was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

Atiku further prayed the court to declare him the winner of the presidential election, having secured the second-highest number of lawful votes cast at the election.

In a related development, the court adjourned till Monday to continue further proceedings on the petition the Allied Peoples Party, APM, filed against the presidential election.

The adjournment came after all the parties agreed to allow every electoral document that was duly certified by INEC to be admitted in evidence.

All the respondents told the court that they filed separate applications for the petition to be dismissed for being incompetent, or in the alternative, for certain paragraphs and reliefs to be struck out.

The panel, while adjourning the case, also enjoined the parties to agree on the number of witnesses to be called as well as the time to be allotted to each of them.

The APM had in its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, contended that the withdrawal of Mr. Ibrahim Masari who was initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy given Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The party argued that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima.

It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.

According to the petitioner, at the time Tinubu announced Shettima as the Vice Presidential candidate, “he was no longer in a position, constitutionally, to nominate a running mate since he had ceased to be a presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent having regards to the provisions of section 142 of the 1999 Constitution”.

More so, APM, contended that Masari’s initial nomination activated the joint ticket principle enshrined in the Constitution, stressing that his subsequent withdrawal invalidated the said joint ticket.

It, therefore, prayed the court to declare that Shettima was not qualified to contest as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the APC as of February 25 when the election was conducted by INEC having violated the provisions of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

“An order nullifying and voiding all the votes scored by Tinubu in the presidential election given his non-qualification as a candidate of the APC”.

Likewise, an order to set aside the Certificate of Return was issued to the President-elect by INEC.