SUNDAY EJIKE and LANRE ADEWOLE consider unreported strategies that delivered for parties at pre-hearing sessions of the presidential election petition court.
If the ongoing presidential election petition hearing at the Court of Appeal in Abuja were to be a football match, the outcome of the preliminary stage, would have been deemed a 1-1 draw, for President Bola Tinubu and the three presidential candidates in the February 25 poll, uniting in a legal challenge against his mandate.
In the pre-hearing report released recently by the five-person-Justice Haruna Tsammani-led Presidential Election Petition Court, two major issues were ostensibly decided, equally, for the two contending parties, considering where they stood on them, in the course of advancing the issues.
Tinubu’s opponents, particularly Peter Obi of Labour Party were denied by the PEPC, the request for live coverage of proceedings in the petitions, arguably for public scrutiny, which translates to victory for Tinubu, whose legal team, resolutely opposed the perceived accountability demand.
During the pre-hearing session, Atiku and Obi, along with their parties had, in their various motions, prayed the court for an order allowing live broadcast of proceedings in their petitions as well as an order, directing the modalities for the live broadcast, because of the national importance of the petitions.
The petitioners argued that the issue of live broadcast was not alien in the country.
In the pre-hearing session report presented by Justice Tsammani, the court gave reasons for dismissing their applications for live broadcast of proceedings. The court held that, televising the proceedings of the court in the petitions, is outside its constitutional mandate.
Justice Tsammani also held that the issue of live streaming of proceedings was novel, unprecedented and not supported with any law in the country for now. He said televising the proceedings will not advance the case of the petitioners, adding that the court is constituted to hear and determine petitions in accordance with the law and Practice Directions by the President of the Court of Appeal.
He further stated that the Practice Direction does not include allowing televising of proceedings as requested by the petitioners and that, the court will not allow a situation that will affect the proceedings.
The court concluded that the issue of televising of proceedings requires a judicial policy, saying “This application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed”.
While ruling on the application for live broadcast filed by Obi and his party, the court held that Obi failed to cite any authority to back up the request for live broadcast of proceedings
Justice Tsammani said there must be a legal framework before live streaming of court proceedings can be allowed.
He said, other jurisdictions, where live streaming of proceedings is allowed, have a legal policy backing it and further held that Obi did not disclose what he stands to lose if the proceedings were not televised live.
“Live streaming of proceedings is a policy matter and the court cannot grant it without adequate legislation. This motion lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed”, Justice Tsammani said.
Going strategic?
The other issue that appears like a victory for the anti-Tinubu litigants is the decision of the trial court to consolidate the three surviving petitions of Atiku Abubakar of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Peter Obi and Allied Peoples Movement (APM), against Tinubu.
The court, had suo moto, proposed the consolidation and parties took different positions on it.
While presenting the report of the pre-hearing session, Justice Tsammani noted the decision of the panel to consolidate the petitions despite objection by the respondents (Tinubu, Shettima and APC), along with INEC.
While the petitioners are in support of the consolidation of the petitions, in line with Paragraph 50 of the first schedule to the Electoral Act 2022, all the respondents, through their counsel, opposed the consolidation.
Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Kemi Pinhero (SAN) in his submissions on the request by the court, said, the electoral umpire was indifferent and would abide with the decision of the court, while, APC, Tinubu, Kashim Shettima and Kabiru Masari, the fifth respondent in one of the petitions, through their counsel, vehemently opposed consolidation.
The respondents held that the interest of justice would not be served if the petitions were consolidated as the grounds raised by parties are not the same and urged the court not to consolidate the petitions.
But, Justice Tsammani, in his ruling, said the court decided to consolidate the petitions because the issues canvassed on the petitions are the same and held that the three petitions are related to the same election and the return of Tinubu as the winner, in addition to the effect that issues raised by the parties are similar.
The Jury can however disclose that the objection by Tinubu’s legal team, was a decoy, to get the petitioners buy into the consolidation move. A senior lawyer on the team, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to officially speak, disclosed that the objection raised by the respondents, was to goad the petitioners into supporting the consolidation proposal, which the source said, was also what the respondents, wanted.
The source further disclosed since the Tinubu legal team discovered that the petitioners have shown manifest desire to oppose everything the respondents support since the election matter began, the consolidation trap was set for them, to get them to give what the respondents wanted, without appearing to be demanding it.
The Jury was also told that the petitioners would have most certainly objected to the consolidation proposal by the court, if the respondents had voiced support and desire for it, hence the resolve to use reversed psychology, to bait them, into supporting what the respondents also supported within their legal camp.
The legal source reasoned that the respondents covertly desired the consolidation, for easier dismissal of all the cases against the President and his Deputy, explaining that the possibility of any of the issues raised against their election, slipping through if the petitions are considered on individual merit, has now dimmed greatly, with the lumping together of the petitioners’ claims.
The Jury was also told that the possibility of any of the petitioners being declared the winner of the disputed poll in the place of Asiwaju, as being individually demanded by Atiku and Obi, is now almost nil with the consolidation decision, with the senior lawyer rationalizing that it is impossible for two people, to be in one case and be seeking same relief, separately.
According to the calculation of Tinubu’s legal team, the most extreme adverse decision that the consolidation decision could throw up, was a few vote cancellation in some states, which may or may not, affect the winning numbers of the President.
The Jury also gathered that the biggest challenge facing the Asiwaju legal team, is how to defend the constitutional issue of him not scoring 25% of the cast votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), a novel development in election adjudication in Nigeria political system.
Inside the report.
In the same pre-hearing report, there are other cogent decisions of the court, to guide proceedings.
One of them, is the agreement among parties not to object to the admissibility of electoral documents duly certified by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The electoral body is however placed under compulsion to allow petitioners carry out forensic examination on BVAS and other electoral materials.
Another decision, is that parties will not contemplate out-of-court settlement in the petition.
It was also settled that the schedule of documents to be tendered as exhibits should be served on parties, before proceedings of the day.
The court, is also to be strict on the time allotted to parties to prove their cases.
An order of subsisted service of petitions on Tinubu, was also granted.
The court also held that ruling on other interlocutory applications in the petitions will be delivered together with the judgement in the petition.
Justice Tsammani equally disclosed that parties agreed to call expert and subpoenaed witnesses and that there are a total of 83 witnesses to be called in the petition by Obi and his party, who has till August 5, 2023 to adopt their addresses after which a date for judgement will be reserved.
“Parties stated that no settlement out of court is being contemplated. All parties subscribed to the hearing of the petition and will rely on the list of documents in their respective pleadings. That, they will not be objecting to electoral documents duly certified by INEC, but reserved their respective rights to object to other documents.
“Parties agreed that arguments on documents objected to at the point of tendering should be reserved and reasons given at the address stage. They have all filed and served schedule of documents to be tendered before date of hearing”, the court announced.
According to Tsammani, star witnesses’ examination-in-chief shall be for 30 minutes, while cross-examination and re-examination shall be 20 and five minutes respectively. Other witnesses of parties have a maximum period of 10 minutes each for examination-in-chief and cross-examination and five minutes, for re-examination and respondents have five minutes each to cross-examine each other.
The report said, after considering the issues canvassed by parties and the evidence adduced, the court shall distill issues for determination where parties were unable to so do.
INEC, umpire or player?
Despite the agreement among parties to respect all INEC-certified documents as admissible, a disagreement, during full trial, broke out between the legal team of Obi and INEC, over documents, especially result sheets, which the Labour Party team, claimed, originated from INEC.
In the course of tendering the results, INEC’s legal team, had to break the agreement of not objecting to documents certified by the electoral commission, despite the reminder by the trial court and admonition, to keep faith to the deal.
Phinero, SAN, had declared the state results being tendered by Obi as strange documents, from unknown sources, despite the assurance by the Labour legal team, that they were genuine INEC documents.
At the initial stage of the trial, on May 24, the Peoples Democratic Party had also taken issue of bias with the electoral body, for defending the election winner.
Atiku, who spoke through his lawyer, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, lamented that INEC was not acting like an unbiased umpire, for filing defence for Tinubu, on issues, outside of the election it conducted.
The PDP flag-bearer was seeking Tinubu’s disqualification over his forfeiture of $460,000 US dollars, on an alleged drug deal, as well as on the ground of alleged perjury regarding his Guinean citizenship.
INEC, through its lawyer, Phinero, asked the court, to strike out the allegations against Tinubu, to the consternation of Atiku, who said, “INEC ought not be here to fight the battle of Tinubu. INEC ought to be neutral and at best, defend only the election it conducted.”
YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THESE HEADLINES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
WEEK BRIEF: Emefiele’s suspension, arrest and Nigeria Air’s revelations top news
The story of the suspension of the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele by President Bola Tinubu broke the internet on…
95% of Nigerian male celebrities, including myself, ‘do both men and women’ — Actor Uche Maduagwu
Controversial Nollywood actor Uche Maduagwu has claimed that no fewer than 95% of both married and single celebrities, including…
Real Reason Tinubu suspended Emefiele — FG
President Bola Tinubu, on Friday, ordered immediate suspension of Mr Godwin Emefiele as…
10 points from President Tinubu’s Democracy Day broadcast
In commemoration of this year’s Democracy Day celebration, President Bola Tinubu made his…
[PHOTOS] Hilda Baci: Lady begins 120 hours cook-a-thon to break Guinness Records
DURING his inauguration speech, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu announced that the era of…
SERIE A: Victor Osimhen becomes first African to win Capocannoniere award
A chef identified as Damilola Adeparusi has begun a 120-hour cooking marathon in Oye Local Government Area in…
and then