By Deborah Onyofufeke, Abuja
The President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu has replied to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate in the February 2023, election.
Tinubu in a counter-affidavit, sought that Atiku’s live broadcast application of the petition tribunal be dismissed by the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).
Speaking through his legal team, led by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Tinubu described Atiku’s application as an abuse of court processes.
He added that the court was not a soapbox, rostrum, or theatre where public entertainment should be entertained.
Tinubu’s team added that the application was otiose, unnecessary, time-wasting, most unusual, and most unexpected, especially coming from a group of petitioners who should be praying for an expeditious trial of their petition.
“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,” they added.
They urged the court to dismiss the application, adding that the relief sought by the applicants was not one that the court could grant.
They also said the application relates to the policy formulation of the court, which is outside the PEPC’s jurisdiction as constituted.
“The application also touches on the powers and jurisdiction invested in the President of the Court of Appeal by the Constitution, over which this honourable court as presently constituted cannot entertain,” they said.
They argued that the application is aimed at dissipating the judicial time of the court, noting that the application does not have any bearing on the petition filed by the petitioners.
Tinubu’s respondents criticised the applicants’ reference to the fact that virtual proceedings were permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic in an attached written address.
They also argued that Atiku and PDP failed to draw the court’s attention to the fact that practise directions for the exercise had been issued by the respective courts.
Noting that the application invites the court to make an order that it cannot supervise.
They, however, noted that the position of the law remains, and the court, like nature, does not make an order in vain or an order which is incapable of enforcement.
