•INEC, Tinubu, APC ask court to dismiss Atiku’s live broadcast request
•Say proceedings not soapbox for public entertainment
•Akin Osuntokun: Apapa-led group only has nuisance value in LP
Alex Enumah in Abuja
But for the timely intervention of police officials, angry supporters Labour Party (LP) supporters suspected to be sympathetic to the Julius Abure faction of the party would have lynched the Acting National Chairman, Mr. Lamidi Apapa.
Apapa was attending the court’s proceedings for the first time yesterday, even though the court had declined to recognise his representation of the Labour Party owing to disagreement on who should represent the party between Apapa and the National Women Leader, Mrs. Dudu Manuga, who had earlier announced appearance alongside Peter Obi.
This was just as the Director-General of the Labour Party Presidential Campaign Council in the 2023 election, Akin Osuntokun, yesterday said the Apapa-led group has nuisance value in the Labour Party.
Obi and LP are currently challenging the declaration of Bola Tinubu as winner of the February 25 presidential election.
Amongst their prayers before the court is the nullification of Tinubu’s victory and return them as winner or in the alternative conduct a fresh election on grounds that the February 25 poll that produced Tinubu as President-elect was marred by massive irregularities and substantial non-compliance with the electoral laws and regulations.
After parties joined issues last month the five-man panel of justices hearing the petition had last Wednesday, adjourned to May 17, to enable parties finalise the harmonisation of documents to be pleaded during trial.
At yesterday’s proceedings, Obi’s lawyer, Dr. Levi Uzoukwu, had informed the court that parties could not meet as directed by the court due to the refusal of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to release necessary documents, particularly from Sokoto and Rivers States, which were germane to the perusal and consideration of all parties.
Responding, INEC’s lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud, stated that the parties could not agree on documents to be used in evidence during trial because LP’s legal team had walked out on the rest of them.
Mahmoud, in addition explained that the petitioners were unable to get documents from Sokoto because they were unwilling to pay the sum of N1.5 million for certification, adding that the Resident Electoral Commissioner in Rivers had already given access to some documents being requested for by the LP.
This statement was corroborated by Tinubu and Shettima’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun, and that of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr. Lateef Fagbemi.
But, Levi however told the court that the statement of the respondents was not true, adding that such statements amounted to blackmail.
Uzoukwu also denied that the party was refusing to pay for certification, stressing that, “we are ready to pay, any amount.”
In a short ruling, the court while observing that the 14 days pre-hearing session of the court expires on May 20, enjoined parties to harmonise all pending applications and fixed May 19 for continuation of pre-hearing in the matter.
However, shortly after the adjournment to Friday, Apapa had wanted to speak with journalists covering the proceedings outside the courtroom but was prevented by the aggrieved supporters who stood in front of television cameras, shoving Apapa and calling him all kinds of names.
Apapa, who was booed and shoved from one point to another by the angry supporters, could no longer speak with the press.
At a point, the angry supporters started pushing him out of the court premises towards the gate before some police officers came to his rescue and took him back into the court.
Apapa had assumed leadership of the LP following a court order suspending Abure from parading himself as National Chairman.
The suspension order by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory was to pave way for Abure’s trial on alleged forgery and corruption charges.
Abure had since appealed the suspension order and has continued to appear with Obi since the proceedings commenced, although he has never introduced himself as the National Chairman of the Labour Party, rather the National Publicity Secretary, Obiora Ifoh has been representing the LP.
Although, the court had since last week being accepting Ifoh, as the representative of the party, it however refused to accept any representative at yesterday’s proceedings owing to Apapa and the National Women Leader of the LP, Mrs Dudu Manuga claiming to be representing the LP.
When the matter was called, Obi represented himself as the 1st petitioner and handed over the microphone to Manuga, but before the court could record the name of Manuga, Apapa stood up to introduce himself as National Chairman of the party and representative of the Labour Party.
Responding, Justice Tsammani who observed that, “there is a little disagreement about who is representing the Labour Party”, held that, “we are not recognising anybody as representative of the party.”
The court subsequently went ahead to take the appearances of other parties in the petition.
Speaking with journalists after the altercation, Apapa urged Obi to wade into the dispute objectively with a view to amicably resolving the lingering crisis.
The acting chairman, who was flanked by the Deputy National Chairman in the north, Mike Ayuba Auta, National Publicity Secretary, Abayomi Arabambi and one of the women leaders Rukayat Salihu Umar, described the incident as disgraceful.
Apapa said the leadership crisis would have been put behind them if the presidential candidate had respected the order of the Federal Capital Territory High court which ordered Abure and three others from parading themselves as National Officers of the party over their indictment for forgery and perjury.
Also speaking, the Deputy National Chairman denied that the APC was behind the crisis, adding that the allegation was baseless and unfounded.
Auta apologised to Nigerians who he said gave Labour Party over six million votes during the last presidential election, adding that they should not be discouraged by the current leadership crisis and assured that the dispute would soon be resolved.
Meanwhile, Osuntokun, during a programme monitored on ARISE News Channel said: “these people have nuisance value. You can extrapolate from their conduct that they are obviously being sponsored. What they do is not in the interest of the party.
“Ask them where they get the money they use in flying private jets; it must be coming from somewhere. They don’t look to me like people who can afford flight tickets.
“If you support Peter Obi and his presidential aspiration, why should you be creating problem for that kind of person.
“They have never said anything that is for the good of the party, they are always making all sorts of wide allegations and all manner of things.”
“What they (the Apapa-led group) are doing is news worthy, but it is irrelevant. What they are doing is being mischievous. They are just being useful to some persons. Look, after the court case, they would fizzle out.”
In a related development, INEC, Tinubu and the APC have asked the PREPEC to turn down the request of another presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar seeking live broadcast of the court’s proceedings.
Atiku and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had hinged their request on the ground that the court’s proceedings was of utmost importance, generating wide public interest, hence the need for the televising of the proceedings.
Atiku and PDP further pointed out that allowing live broadcast would enhance transparency in the activities of the court.
But in their individual responses, INEC Tinubu and APC countered that the 2023 poll was not in any way different from previous elections, adding that nothing spectacular or unique has conferred such special status on the proceedings.
In the replies filed by their lawyers – Olanipekun and Fagbemi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, respectively, while noting that live broadcast would trivialise the proceedings, urged the court to dismiss the application.
In the reply dated May 14, while Fagbemi argued that granting live coverage, “would violate the principles of fair trial, as witnesses may be influenced by the public opinion”, Olanipekun stressed that, “It is not a rostrum or a soapbox. It is not also a stadium or theatre. It is not an arena for ‘public’ entertainment.
Besides Olanipekun submitted that the application relates to policy formulation of the court, which is outside the PREPEC’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 honorable court as presently constituted cannot entertain.
“The application touches on the administrative functions, which are exclusively reserved for the President of the Court of Appeal.
“The application is aimed at dissipating the precious judicial time of this honourable court.
“The said application does not have any bearing with the petition filed by the petitioners before this honourable court.
“It is in the interest of justice for this honourable court to dismiss the said application filed by the petitioners,” Olanipekun said.
Further condemning the request, Fagbemi argued that live broadcast of election proceedings would only cause unnecessary tension, violence, and unrest among the public, which may lead to a breach of the peace of the country.
“That blanket T.V. Coverage being sought by the applicants herein for the proceedings is not public hearing but hearing for the public meant for sensationalism media trial and public embarrassment to the judex before whom the proceedings are being conducted,the parties and their Counsel.
“Paragraph 6 of the Petitioners’ affidavit is true only to the extent that spaces are reserved for the press in this court to allow them observe proceedings and report same to the public and Nigerians are already abreast of the proceedings of this Court which has been enjoying wide media coverage;
“Contrary to paragraph 7, witnesses, justices, and parties to the Petition will be greatly prejudiced and adversely affected as the anonymity of the witnesses will be taken away and judges will be exposed to social media sensationalism.
“The motion is misconceived and ungrantable as the suit of the petitioners/applicants who do not represent the public, for whose benefit the prayers in the motion are sought.
“If granted, the instant motion for an overbroad, blanket order for live broadcast of proceedings has a grave but undesirable potential of contaminating and polluting the solemnity of this judicial proceeding and turning it into a Big Brother Naija Court Show. That will be a self-inflicted tagedy of elephantine proportion by this court- God Forbid!”
Besides, Fagbemi stated that the facilities and technology required to even attempt live broadcast without compromising the integrity of the court process and records from internet hackers assuming the legal framework were extant, do not to exist at the moment.
“This factor was the reason other jurisdiction referenced by Applicant for support, but with far less challenging supporting infrastructure like UK and India have made haste slowly in embarking on live broadcast of trial court proceedings generally and refraining from extending its application to witness testimonies.
“The application is an uncharitable play to the gallery. It is a slap on the face of the justice system, hence frivolous, overreaching and same should not see the light of the day.
“We urge this Honourable Court to dismiss same as an audacious invitation to the court to ridicule its hallowed and solemn sanctuary of justice”, they added.
However, hearing in the application for live broadcast is expected to come up today.
Last modified: May 18, 2023
