Atiku, Obi Lose Case For Live Transmission of Court Proceedings

The New Diplomat
Writer

Ad

DHQ Never Mentioned Any Coup Attempt

1. The attention of the Defence Headquarters (DHQ) has been drawn to a false and misleading report by an online publication insinuating that the cancellation of activities marking Nigeria’s 65th Independence Anniversary was linked to an alleged attempted military coup. The report also made spurious references to the recent DHQ press release announcing the arrest…

Oil Prices Dip as Trump-Putin Summit Looms

Crude oil prices are expected to decline this week due to the hypothetical possibility of a peace agreement between the US and Russia, which could lead to a rebound in Russian oil exports and contribute to a predicted supply glut. The International Energy Agency has revised its demand growth estimates downwards for both this year…

When Forgiveness Is Hard (2), By Funke Egbemode

She was popularly called Mama Iyabo. Her husband threw her out of their matrimonial home 15 years ago, along with her three children, after 15 years of marriage. “I had earlier heard rumours about my husband and another woman. I knew he had girlfriends. He was doing well and living it up, though he took…

Ad

By Charles Adingupu

It was a rough day for two presidential candidates, Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and Peter Obi of the Labour Party, LP, when their application for live broadcast of the sittings of the Presidential Election Petition Court were on Monday 22 May, 2023, dismissed outrightly.

The five-man panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani dismissed the request as lacking in merit and rejected it.

The five-man panel maintained that countries where cameras are allowed to broadcast such proceedings, have laws that permit the practice.

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

The Court also ruled that any attempt to allow cameras will automatically turn the court room into a theatre of a sort.

According to the ruling, no regulatory framework or policy direction permitted it to grant the application.

“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 dramatization of our proceedings,” Justice Tsammani said.

Furthermore, the court held that the request was not part of any relief sought by the petitioners and had no bearing on it.

It ruled that the request for a live broadcast will not add to the determination of the petitions adding that the petitioners failed to establish how the live broadcast of the proceedings would advance their case.

Ad

X whatsapp