How Presidential Election Petition Court Judge ‘Disgraced’ Tinubu Lawyer 

How Presidential Election Petition Court Judge ‘Disgraced‘ Tinubu Lawyer 

 

 

News Week Nigeria reports that the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Thursday in Abuja disgraced Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, lead counsel to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, saying that he was citing an outdated law in opposition to the request by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate for president, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, for live coverage of the court’s proceedings.

 

 

 

Olanipekun was made aware of an incorrect citation of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers by the court’s chairman, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, to support Tinubu’s opposition to live coverage of the proceedings in Atiku’s petition.

 

At the hearing on Thursday, Tinubu, APC, and INEC all separately objected to Atiku’s request for live coverage of the court proceedings to increase public trust and confidence in the judiciary.

 

 

 

In support of his demand for a live broadcast of the proceedings, Atiku had cited the monumental importance of the petition on a national and international level through his lead attorney, Chief Chris Uche, SAN.

 

However, Olanipekun had cited Paragraph 4.6 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers in an effort to support his strident opposition, which he claimed forbade judicial officers from broadcasting or televising proceedings during a court session.

 

Following Chris Uche’s arguments that there was currently no law or statute prohibiting the live broadcast of court proceedings, he cited the disputed law.

 

Justice Tsammani interrupted Olanipekun just as he was about to read the relevant section of the law, informing him that he was citing the incorrect piece of legislation.

 

Olanipekun was informed by Justice Tsammani that the passage he had used to support his objections to live coverage had been revised and had been entirely removed.

 

The court’s chairman insisted that the section Olanipekun was claiming no longer existed in the new Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.

 

 

Uche drew the court’s attention to the Justice Oputa Panel of Inquiry, which was telecast live and praised all over the nation, while arguing for a live broadcast of Atiku’s petition.

 

The senior attorney claimed that if the petition is broadcast live, none of the respondents will be harmed.

 

He specifically stated that live broadcasts of court proceedings were not prohibited by any laws or statutes, adding that the fact that it had never been done before should not be interpreted as a reason why it cannot be done now.

 

His admission drew thunderous applause from the audience, which continued to applaud for a while before the court made it clear that applause was not permitted in courtrooms.

 

Atiku’s request, according to Tinubu’s objections raised by his attorney, is not only unexpected but also risky because it has the potential to harm the court itself.

 

Olanipekun claimed that if live coverage is requested, the court could be transformed into a football stadium, a battleground, a theatre, or a movie set where any type of broadcast could be allowed.

 

 

The senior attorney argued that the present time is not the best one to grant such a request and that the court shouldn’t make an order that cannot be monitored or enforced.

 

According to Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who opposed on behalf of the APC, the facility and policy documents are not present, so the application cannot be approved.

 

Atiku, according to Fagbemi, did not deserve to have his request granted.

 

The electoral body objected, stating that the courtroom is for serious business and not a market where anything goes and that the request for live coverage is unnecessary, uncalled for, and should not be granted. The objections were made by the electoral body’s attorney, Abubakar Balarabe Mahmoud, SAN.

 

Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, the court’s president, has postponed the decision in this case until a time that will be disclosed to the parties.