In a recent development concerning the presidential tribunal, ‘President-elect’ Bola Tinubu and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have expressed their opposition to the application made by Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) requesting a live broadcast of the court proceedings. They argue that the court is not a venue for entertainment, but a serious institution focused on justice.

Atiku and the PDP had argued that televising the court proceedings would enhance transparency and reinforce citizens’ trust in the judicial process. They specifically requested an order directing the court’s registry and the involved parties to allow media practitioners and their equipment into the courtroom for a live telecast. However, Tinubu and Kashim Shettima, the ‘Vice President-elect,’ dismissed the application as frivolous, claiming that it would waste the court’s time.

In a joint response filed by their legal team, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Tinubu and Shettima stated that the application was an abuse of the court’s processes and solely intended to distract the court. They argued that the relief sought by the applicants fell outside the court’s jurisdiction and infringed upon the powers and administrative functions of the President of the Court of Appeal. They further emphasized that the application had no bearing on the ongoing petition before the court and urged its dismissal in the interest of justice.

The respondents also challenged Atiku and the PDP’s reference to virtual proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic. They pointed out that practice directions were issued by the heads of courts, not individual judges or Justices. Moreover, they contended that the application invited the court to make an order it could not effectively enforce.

Tinubu and Shettima highlighted that the court should maintain its solemnity and dignity as a place of justice. They emphasized that the court should not be viewed as a platform for entertainment, but rather as a serene and honorable institution. They argued that the term “public,” as defined in Section 36(3) of the Constitution, referred to a place accessible to members of the public, with the court itself sitting behind open doors, not in camera. They also questioned the undefined nature of the “public” mentioned in the application.

Ultimately, Tinubu and Shettima labeled the motion as an abuse of the court’s processes, highlighting that it should remain focused on expeditiously addressing the petition. They reiterated their belief that the court’s proceedings should be conducted with seriousness, discipline, and decorum.