Two applications from the first runner-up and the second runner-up in the February 25, 2023 Presidential Election urging the court to order live broadcast of proceedings at the Presidential Election Petitions Court suffered a terrible blow on Monday as the court said the applications lacked merit and thus dismissed it.

Specifically, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) had prayed the court to allow a live broadcast of its sessions owing to the magnitude of the dispute.

But the five-member panel of the court headed by Justice Haruna Tsammani unanimously ruled on the two separate applications that there was no legal basis for its proceedings to be broadcast live. “It is a policy matter. This court has no power to formulate such”, Justice Tsammani said.

Citing section 36 of the Nigerian constitution, Mr Tsammani held that fair hearing of court proceedings “does not amount to conducting court sittings on television or in a stadium.”

“The request (for a live broadcast of the court proceedings) has no utilitarian value. Live broadcast of court proceedings has no provisions in our statutory books,” Justice Tsammani said stressing that: “there is nowhere in the constitution and Electoral Act for televising court sittings.”

The court further held that the issue of live broadcast of court hearings has to be “a judicial policy” that would be put in place by the heads of courts. “Live broadcast of proceedings is a judicial policy. We cannot permit a procedure that dramatises the court’s proceedings. This application is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed,” the court said.

Justice Tsammani said none of the parties submitted any law supporting live streaming of court proceedings stressing that :” legal framework is not in place. It has to be planned and budgeted for”.

The two rulings we’re unanimously delivered with one of the justices observing that:”trial by television will do no one any good” and another Justice warning that:”election petition is a very emotive trial”.

Alhaji Abubakar’s lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), had in the application that his client’s petition against Mr Tinubu’s victory “is a matter of national concern…”

Chief Uche explained that the suit concerns the Nigerian electorate and should be televised to afford them the opportunity of getting first-hand information about the Presidential Election Petition Court.

Similarly, Mr Obi prayed the court to grant his request for a live broadcast of its sessions.

However, Senator Tinubu and the APC opposed the application to have the court’s proceedings televised.

They argued that “the court of law must and should always be a serene, disciplined, hallowed, tranquil, honourable and decorous institution and place.

“It is not a rostrum or a soapbox. It is not also a stadium or theatre. It is not an arena for ‘public’ entertainment.

“With much respect to the petitioners, the motion is an abuse of the processes of this honourable court,” Senator Tinubu’s legal team contended.

All Progressives Congress (APC ) lead counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi(SAN) similarly urged the court to dismiss Alhaji Abubakar’s application which he likened to a call for a reality television show known as Big Brother Naija.

He said the court should not allow such a live broadcast like it is done in a show called “Big Brother Naija,” a submission that triggered laughter across the packed courtroom.

But Chief Uche, cautioned that Prince Fagbemi was trying to trivialise his application by likening it to a call for a show like Big Brother Naija.

The five-member panel led by Haruna Tsammani subsequently reserved a ruling on the application. The panel did not fix any particular date for the ruling but like a bolt from the blues, they did on Monday.

Prominent Nigerians including the president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Yakubu Maikayu, had in March this year, called for the live broadcast of court hearings of all election petition cases across the country to boost the disappearing public confidence in the judiciary.