The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) has reserved rulings on applications to dismiss a petition by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
The party is challenging the competence of the Bola Tinubu-Kashim Shettima ticket in the February 25 poll.
The applications are by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the All Progressives Congress (APC), Tinubu, Shettma and Ibrahim Masari.
Masari was nominated by the APC as the ‘placeholder’ before Shettima was picked as Tinubu’s running-mate.
APM is contending that the pre-poll procedure was wrong.
It is praying the court to hold that the concept of ‘placeholder’ is unknown to law and that Tinubu, in effect, had no running mate.
APM’s lawyer, Shehu Abubakar, argued that the applications by the respondents are without merit and should be dismissed.
The court adjourned further pre-hearing session in respect of the APM petition till Monday.
It also reserved ruling till a later date on the application by Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for a live telecast of proceedings.
Justice Tsammani made the announcement a moment ago after the court took arguments from lawyers to parties in the case.
The petitioners’ lawyer, Chris Uche (SAN), prayed the court to grant his clients’ request, arguing that it was necessary to televise the proceedings to enable members of the public to witness the proceedings.
Uche, who said the case was of monumental national importance, argued that it was wrong for the respondents to liken their request to an attempt to recreate the “Big Brother Naija” programme.
He argued that the fact such prayer had not been granted before did not mean that it could not be granted, noting that the nation benefited when the Oputa Panel proceedings were aired live.
Responding, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) for INEC, Woke Olanipekun (SAN) for Tinubu and Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) for the APC described the application as ridiculous and intended to trivialise the court’s business.
They added that the court has met the constitutional requirement by making sufficient arrangements for the public to follow the proceedings by allowing a large media presence and providing huge television screens in the court’s foyer.
Mahmoud said the impression being created by the petitioners was that the proceedings were not already being conducted in public unless it was televised.
Mahmoud faulted the petitioners for equating live streaming of court proceedings with live broadcast, noting that while the former is controlled, the latter cannot be controlled.
Olanipekun argued that granting such a request would be to the detriment of the court, its officials and lawyers, who would be exposed to undue pressure and danger
He said: “It is very strange and intriguing that this application was brought. This is not a stadium; this is not a crusade ground. It is not a theatre and not a film house. We are not here for a circus.
“What else do the petitioners want? With the array of media houses already accommodated in the court, with special space provided for them to freely operate and sit comfortably, the petitioners can not say the proceedings are not in public,” he said.
Olanipekun cautioned against unnecessary comparison, noting that even in the United Kingdom and other developed societies, live coverage of court proceedings is not at large.
Fagbemi likened the application to an attempt by the petitioners to recreate the “Big Brother Naija” programme, arguing that the court should reject the move by Atiku and the PDP to trivialize its activities.
He added: “The court has already adopted trial in public. A viewing gallery has also been provided for public viewing of the proceedings. It will amount to opening the floodgate to accede to the petitioner’s request.”
He warned that other election tribunals would be bombarded with similar applications should the court grant the prayer by Atiku and his party.
“In jurisdictions that allow the broadcasting and live streaming, evidential live issues are excluded, like when witnesses are giving evidence.”
“Under our electoral jurisprudence, names of witnesses are not revealed. This practice is meant to protect the identity of such witnesses. These cannot be possible where proceedings are televised live,” he said.
Fagbemi noted that while members of the public have not complained that they are not aware of what is happening in the court, the petitioners have not shown the injury they will suffer if the proceedings are not aired live.
He added that Uche’s claim that airing the proceedings live will make lawyers conduct themselves properly, was dangerous because such external scrutiny from the public could be extended to the judges.
Earlier, Uche told the court that lawyers to parties met and agreed that duly certified documents from INEC will not be objected to when tendered, while others will be objected to at the point of tendering, but with the reasons indicated at the point of filing final written addresses.
Mahmoud, Olanipekun and Fagbemi confirmed the agreement as related by the petitioner’s lawyer.
The court adjourned further pre-hearing session in the petition till today during which parties are to agree on the number of witnesses to be called, and time to be allocated to each witness to testify and be cross-examined, among others.