You’re citing outdated law against Atiku’s live coverage request, PEPC tells Tinubu’s lawyer
On Thursday in Abuja, the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) informed Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, lead counsel to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, that he was citing an old law against the request by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate Alhaji Abubakar Atiku for live coverage of court proceedings.
Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, the court’s chairman, drew Olanipekun’s attention to a section of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers that was being improperly cited to justify Tinubu’s opposition to live coverage of proceedings in Atiku’s petition.
Read Also:
Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) opposed Atiku’s request for live coverage of the court proceedings on Thursday so as to promote public trust and confidence in the court.
Atiku, through his lead counsel Chief Chris Uche, SAN, cited the national and international significance of the petition to support his demand for a live broadcast of the proceedings.
However, in an attempt to justify his vehement opposition, Olanipekun cited Paragraph 4.6 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, which he claimed prohibited judicial officers from broadcasting or televising court proceedings.
He cited the disputed law in response to Chris Uche’s argument that there was currently no law or statute prohibiting the live telecast of court proceedings.
As Olanipekun was about to read the section of the law, Justice Tsammani interrupted him and informed him that he was citing the incorrect statute.
Justice Tsammani informed Olanipekun that the passage he was citing to support his arguments against live coverage had been altered and the passage cited had been entirely removed.
The court’s chief justice maintained that Olanipekun’s claim was no longer included in the new Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.
While arguing for a live broadcast of Atiku’s petition, Uche drew the court’s attention to the Justice Oputa Panel of Inquiry, which was televised live and praised across the nation.
The senior attorney stated that none of the respondents would be harmed by the live broadcast of the petition.
Specifically, he stated that there was no law or statute prohibiting the live broadcast of court proceedings, and that the fact that it had never been done before should not be interpreted as an indication that it cannot be done now.
His submission elicited thunderous applause from the audience, who applauded for several minutes until the judge announced that applause was not permitted in courtrooms.
Tinubu’s objections were raised by his attorney, who stated that Atiku’s request was not only unexpected but also potentially prejudicial to the court.
Also Read: Nigerian Newspapers: 10 Things You Need to Know this Friday, May 19, 2023
Olanipekun stated that the request for live coverage has the potential to transform the court into a football stadium, a crusade ground, a theatre, or a film set where any type of telecast is permitted.
The senior attorney stated that the court should not grant an order that cannot be enforced or supervised, and that now is not the best time to grant such a request.
Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who argued against the request on behalf of the APC, stated that the requested facility and policy documents do not exist.
Fagbemi insisted that Atiku did not merit having his request granted.
In objections filed by its attorney Abubakar Balarabe Mahmoud, SAN, the electoral body stated that the courtroom is for serious business and not a free-for-all, and that the request for live coverage is unnecessary and unwarranted and should not be granted.
In the meantime, the presiding judge, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, has postponed ruling on the case until a date that will be communicated to the parties.
That is the latest Naija News Today on You’re citing outdated law against Atiku’s live coverage request, PEPC tells Tinubu’s lawyer
