Tinubu, Shettima reject live election petition processes broadcast

They contended that the petitioners' requests for relief were not ones the court could approve. The respondents argued that, with all due regard to the petitioners, the motion amounted to an abuse of the court's procedures.

In addition to dismissing the application as frivolous, they argued that the court should not be used as a stage, stadium, or theater for entertainment of the general public.

They questioned why a petitioner would submit an application in order to divert the court's attention and squander its limited time through their team of attorneys, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun. They claimed in the counter affidavit that the application related to judicial policymaking, which is outside the purview of the PEPC in its current configuration.

This honorable court, in its current form, is unable to hear the application since it "also touches on the powers and jurisdiction invested in the President of the Court of Appeal by the Constitution."The application touches on executive duties that are solely the responsibility of the President of the Court of Appeal.

"The application aims to waste this honorable court's valuable judicial time.

"The petition that the petitioners filed with this honorable court has nothing to do with the stated application.

"It is in the interest of justice for this honourable court to dismiss the said application filed by the petitioners," they argued.

The respondents criticized the applicants' mention to the fact that virtual proceedings were permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic in an appended written address. They claimed that Atiku and his party had neglected to inform the court that practice directives had been issued by the relevant courts for the procedure.

"This application's call to the court to issue an order that it cannot oversee presents another viewpoint to consider.

The respondents said, "The law's position remains, and we do argue that the court, like nature, does not make an order in vain, or an order that cannot be enforced.

More specifically, they claimed that "At best, this application is academic, very otiose, extremely superfluous, extremely time-wasting, most uncommon, and quite unexpected, especially from a group of petitioners, who should be hoping for the swift trial of their petition.

"Petitioners have filed their application pursuant to Section 36(3) of the Constitution, which mandates that court and tribunal proceedings be open to the public.

"The term 'public' as used in Section 36(3) of the Constitution has been defined in a large number of judicial authorities to indicate a location to which the general public has unrestricted access, as well as the court itself, sitting behind open doors and not in the camera.

"Even in circumstances where a class action is brought, the specific individuals who make up the class that the plaintiffs or petitioners are representing are always identified in the originating procedure.

The public whose request this application was made is not identified, known, or discernible in this application.

Beyond all of these, we argue that the court of law must and should always continue to be what it is, what it ought to be, and what one expects it to be: a calm, orderly, reverent, peaceful, honorable, and decorous institution and setting.There is no podium or soapbox here. It is not also a theater or a stadium. This isn't a place for 'public' entertainment.

With all due respect to the petitioners, the move represents an abuse of this honorable court's procedures.