..Eyes on Tribunal, as S’Court fixes May 26 for judgement on PDP’s case seeking Tinubu’s disqualification

…I’m leaving Nigeria in very competent hands – Buhari

…Tinubu, APC counter move to merge petitions

…As Court dismisses request for live coverage of petitions

By Moses Adeniyi

Although petitions challenging his election victory to stop him from being sworn-in as the 16th President of Nigeria are still very much before the court and awaiting determination, President Muhammadu Buhari on Monday declared his confidence in the President-elect, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, to run a government that would build on his legacy of eight years.

Buhari’s declaration of confidence is coming as the determination of the petitions before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) are awaited before the inauguration date of May 29.

While prayers to stop the inauguration of Tinubu in opposition against his declaration as President-elect by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) premised upon his victory at the polls subsist, the President Buhari led Federal Government has continued to vow that the May 29 inauguration remains sacrosanct.

President Buhari on Monday barely seven days to handing over power repose confidence in Tinubu, stating he will strengthen the framework of Nigeria’s public-private partnership policies to accelerate the pace of the Country’s economic growth and development.

“I am happy to leave our economy in very competent hands. I am confident that my successor, His Excellency Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, will sustain the improvement in our economic and business environment,” Buhari said when he inaugurated Dangote Petroleum Refinery in Ibeju-Lekki, Lagos.

Speaking at the occasion attended by Heads of State from Ghana, Togo, Niger, Senegal and a representative of the President of Chad, Buhari described the feat as a significant milestone for Nigeria’s economy and a game changer for the downstream petroleum products market in the entire African region.

“This mega industry we are commissioning today is a clear example of what can be achieved when entrepreneurs are encouraged and supported and when an enabling environment is created for investments and for businesses to thrive.

“I am confident that my successor, His Excellency Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, will sustain the improvement in our economic and business environment and strengthen the framework of our public-private partnership policies to accelerate the pace of our economic growth and development.

“I am happy to leave our economy in very competent hands,” Special Adviser to Buhari on Media and Publicity, Femi Adesina, quoted the President in a statement he signed on Monday titled ‘President Buhari inaugurates Dangote Refinery, calls it a game changer for Nigeria’s economy.’

Buhari acknowledged that Nigeria’s economy has faced significant challenges over the years, including deficits in economic infrastructure, insurgency, and external crises such as the Global Financial Crisis, oil price collapses, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Russia-Ukraine war.

“The consequence of these challenges constitute a severe strain on our economy, limiting Government’s ability to provide basic infrastructure without resorting to huge borrowings.

“Our Government, therefore, took the decision to focus attention on creating an enabling environment for the private sector to thrive and fill the enormous gap in investments not only in infrastructure but also in all critical sectors,” he said.

…Supreme Court fixes May 26 for judgement on PDP’s disqualification case against Tinubu

Meanwhile, less than seven days to the May 29 inauguration, the opposition are still in the legal tussle seeking to nullify the election of Tinubu as President-elect and to stop his inauguration.

The Supreme Court has, however, fixed May 26 for the judgement delivery in a case by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) praying for the disqualification of Tinubu and Kassim Shettima, the Vice President-elect.

Also, the party implored the court to reverse the Court of Appeal judgment, led by Justice James Abundaga, which held that the party failed to establish its locus standi.

…Tinubu, APC counter move to merge petitions

Meanwhile, President-elect and his Party, the All Progressive Congress (APC),  on Monday, rejected the proposal to consolidate the three surviving petitions being heard at the Presidential Election Petition Court wherein the outcome of the February 25 presidential election is being challenged.

On Saturday, the Chairman of the panel, Justice Haruna Tsammani, had referred counsels to the parties in the  petition to consult paragraph 50 of the 1st Schedule of the Electoral Act on the idea of consolidating the three surviving petitions to determine them as one.

He directed the counsels to consult their clients and report back the outcome of the meeting.

Upon the resumed sitting on the matter, Counsel for the APC, Charles Edosomwam, SAN, stated that consolidating the petitions would be against the interest of justice.

He said the justice factor is a major issue for consideration adding that “the grounds are different and the wide range of issues raised by parties are also different.”

He argued that “major issues before this court will be lost like a pin in a haystack” if the consolidation is considered.

“Moreover, it will be pragmatically impossible for the respondent to effectively defend the case.

“It is our position that the issue of justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of convenience,” he said.

On common grounds, Tinubu, through his team of lawyers led by Akin Olujinmi, SAN, argued that consolidating all the petitions would strongly affect his ability to defend all the issues that were raised against him.

Arguing  that the petitioners are seeking different reliefs, Olujinmi said, “The issue of justice should be a restraint on the power of this court to exercise its discretion in granting the order for consolidation.”

He argued that the provision of the Electoral Act the court referred to, was not absolute.

“My lords, when the exercise of power is subject to the limitation of some conditions, then it cannot be said that the exercise is mandatory.

“There are issues raised in one petition that are not there in others. The issues vary. The same goes for evidential issues that are based on pleadings that have been exchanged by parties in this case.

“We want to make it clear at this stage that it will be absolutely difficult for us to consent to consolidation of the petitions,” he argued

However, INEC on its part, said it would leave the issue of the consolidation to the court’s discretion.

…Court dismisses request for live coverage of petitions against Tinubu

Meanwhile, the Presidential Election Petition Court sitting in Abuja, on Monday, dismissed the request to allow its day-to-day proceedings on petitions seeking to nullify the outcome of the 2023 presidential election, to be televised.

The Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five member panel dismissed as lacking in merit, the application which was brought before it by the two major contenders -Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP), who are challenging the outcome of the February 25 presidential election.

The Court held that no regulatory framework or policy direction, permitted it to grant such application.

It held that allowing cameras in the court room is a major judicial policy that must be supported by the law.

“The Court can only be guided and act in accordance with the practice directions and procedures approved by the President of the Court of Appeal.

“We cannot permit a situation that may lead to dramatisation of our proceedings,” Justice Tsammani held.

The Court also held that the request was not part of any relief in the petitions before it, saying it was merely hinged on sentimental claim that it would benefit the electorates.

It maintained that the petitioners failed to establish how televising the proceedings would advance their case, adding that such live broadcast would not have any utilitarian value to add to the determination of the petitions.

Recall the move of Atiku praying the Court for a live coverage of the proceedings of the Court was subsequently trailed that of Obi making the same request.

The duo, through their lead lawyers, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, and Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, maintained that petitions they lodged to challenge the declaration of Tinubu, as winner of the election, was “a matter of monumental national concern and public interest”.

They argued that the case involved the interest of citizens and electorates in the 36 States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, who they said voted and participated in the presidential poll.

Atiku and the PDP insisted that their case against Tinubu, being a unique electoral dispute with a peculiar constitutional dimension, is a matter of public interest in which millions of Nigerian citizens and voters are stakeholders, with the constitutional right to be part of the proceedings.

They specifically applied for “An order, directing the Court’s Registry and the parties on modalities for admission of Media Practitioners and their Equipments into the courtroom.

“With the huge and tremendous technological advances and developments in Nigeria and beyond, including the current trend by this Honourable Court towards embracing electronic procedures, virtual hearing and electronic filing, a departure from the Rules to allow a regulated televising of the proceedings in this matter is in consonance with the maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

“Televising court proceedings is not alien to this Honourable Court, and will enhance public confidence,” the petitioners submitted to the Court.

However, in separate processes they filed before the Court, both Tinubu and the APC urged the Court to dismiss the application which they described as an abuse of the legal process.

Tinubu, in a counter-affifavit he filed alongside the Vice President-elect, Kashim Shettima, accused Atiku of deliberately attempting to expose the judiciary to public opprobrium.

According to them, the court “is not a rostrum or a soapbox. It is not also a stadium or theatre. It is not an arena for public entertainment.”

The respondents maintained that Atiku’s request had no bearing with the petition, insisting that it was only aimed at dissipating the judicial time of the Court.

They stressed that Atiku failed to realise that the virtual court system that was adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic, was backed by a practice direction that was administratively issued by the President of the Court of Appeal.

“Another angle to this very curious application is the invitation it extends to the court to make an order that it cannot supervise.

“The position of the law remains, and we do submit that the court, like nature, does not make an order in vain, or an order which is incapable of enforcement,” the respondents added.

They described the application was at best, “academic, very otiose, very unnecessary, very time-wasting, most unusual and most unexpected, particularly, from a set of petitioners, who should be praying for the expeditious trial of their petition.

“Petitioners have brought their application under Section 36(3) of the Constitution which provides that the proceedings of a court/tribunal shall be held in public.

“The word ‘public’ as applied under Section 36(3) of the Constitution has been defined in a plethora of judicial authorities to mean a place where members of the public have unhindered access, and the court itself, sitting behind open doors, not in the camera.

“Even in situations where a class action is presented, the particular people constituting the class being represented by the plaintiffs or petitioners are always defined in the originating process.

“Here, in this application, the public at whose behest this application has been presented is not defined, not known, not discernable.

“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.

“It is not a rostrum or a soapbox. It is not also a stadium or theatre. It is not an arena for ‘public’ entertainment.

“With much respect to the petitioners, the motion is an abuse of the processes of this honourable court,” Tinubu argued.

On its part, APC, through its team of lawyers led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, told the court that contrary to Atiku’s claim, the presidential election “is not subject matter of any national concern,” insisting that the election was “well managed by INEC with turnout of voters in their millions.”

It argued that proceedings of the court are already being adequately covered by the media.

“There is nothing unique or peculiar in the electoral dispute that emanated from the outcome of the 25th February 2023 election that is different from the earlier five presidential elections in the country since the Advent of the Fourth Republic and if anything, the February 25 2023 election referred to, has the least litigation since 1999,” APC added.

It further argued that live broadcast “will subject the proceedings of the court to unnecessary sensationalism and undue social media trial, which distracts from the kernel of the serious business before the court.”

It was further averred that allowing live televising of the proceedings, “will defeat the protection afforded to witnesses, expose them to avoidable censure and put them in a precarious situation.”

“Televising of election tribunal proceedings (live) will only cause unnecessary tension, violence and unrest among the public, which may lead to breach of peace,” APC argued, urging the court to dismiss the application in the interest of justice.

The outcome of the February 25 presidential election which saw INEC declaring Tinubu as winner and President-elect having polled majority votes, had been trailed with legal battle contesting the outcome.

The PEPC had begun the proceeding with five aggrieved parties challenging the outcome of the 2023 presidential election.

However, the Action Alliance withdrew its case, with the Action Peoples Party following suit two days later.

The development had left the PDP, the LP, and the Allied Peoples Movement as the three surviving petitioners.