Connect with us

Politics

Atiku: Seeks Live Broadcast of Tribunal Proceedings

Published

on

444 Views

Both the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in the just-concluded election, Atiku Abubakar, and the party, PDP have approached the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal to seek an order allowing live broadcast of proceedings of his petition.

In an application dated May 5, Atiku and the PDP are specifically asking the court for an order directing the court’s registry and the parties on modalities for admission of media practitioners and their equipment into the courtroom.

The application filed by their team of lawyers led by Chris Uche, SAN, is premised on the grounds that the matter before the court is a dispute over the outcome of the 2023 presidential election held on February 25 and therefore a matter of national concern and public interest.

They also contended that being a unique electoral dispute with a peculiar constitutional dimension, it was a matter of public interest where millions of Nigerians were stakeholders with a constitutional right to receive.

“An integral part of the constitutional duty of the court to hold proceedings in public is a discretion to allow public access to proceedings either physically or by electronic means.

“With the huge and tremendous technological advances and developments in Nigeria and beyond, including the current trend by this court towards embracing electronic procedures, virtual hearing, and electronic filing, a departure from the rules to allow a regulated televising of the proceedings in this matter is in consonance with the maxim that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

Politics

Breaking: Supreme Court restores David Mark-led ADC leadership

The apex court in its judgement delivered today, held that the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal acted beyond its jurisdiction by unilaterally issuing such an order after it had already dismissed a case that was brought before it by one of the factions.

Published

on

By

2 Views

The Supreme Court has restored David Mark -led leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) party in a unanimous decision by a five-member panel headed by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba.

The apex court in its judgement delivered today, held that the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal acted beyond its jurisdiction by unilaterally issuing such an order after it had already dismissed a case that was brought before it by one of the factions.

“Giving such an order in an appeal it had already dismissed was unnecessary, unwarranted and improper,” the Supreme Court held.

It held that the appeal that was filed before it by Senator David Mark succeeded in part, even as it dismissed the aspect that challenged an ex parte order the Federal High Court made for service of processes in the suit filed by aggrieved members of the party.

It held that the appeal that was filed before it by Senator David Mark succeeded in part, even as it dismissed the aspect that challenged an ex parte order the Federal High Court made for service of processes in the suit filed by aggrieved members of the party.

The apex court directed the factions to return to the trial court for continuation of hearing of the case.

It will be recalled that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had removed Mark and Rauf Aregbesola from its portal and website as ADC National Chairman and Secretary, respectively, on April 1, citing the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

The electoral body said it would, in line with the order for maintenance of the status quo ante bellum, not recognise any of the warring factions until the legal dispute is determined.

Continue Reading

Politics

BREAKING: Supreme Court Again Voids PDP’s Ibadan Convention In The Second Appeal

The five-member Apex Court panel expressed displeasure with the Turaki group for its disobedience of the order of the trial court including the instruction to halt the the planned Ibadan convention until forms are sold to all those interested to run for executive positions.

Published

on

By

28 Views

The Supreme Court minutes ago voided the Ibadan Convention organized by the Tanimu Turaki-led faction of the People’s Democratic Party PDP in Ibadan last November.

‎‎In a split decision of three justices to two, the Apex Court in its lead judgement prepared and read by Justice Stephen Adah condemned, in strong terms, the disobedience of court orders by the Turaki camp. ‎‎

This is the verdict on the appeal challenging the decision of the Court that affirms that former Jigawa State governor, Sule Lamido, was unlawfully excluded from the chairmanship race. ‎‎

The five-member Apex Court panel expressed displeasure with the Turaki group for its disobedience of the order of the trial court including the instruction to halt the the planned Ibadan convention until forms are sold to all those interested to run for executive positions.

‎‎The Apex Court further stressed that the Ibadan Convention went ahead in defiance of a subsisting court order, an action deemed as ‘condemnable’. ‎‎

Justices Mohammed Garba and Justice Chidioma Nwosu-Iheme are the others for the majority decisions while Justices Haruna Tsammani and Abubakar Sadiq Umar were in the minority.‎

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme court rules on ADC and PDP crisis today

In the notice judgement would commence at 2 pm.

Published

on

By

23 Views

The supreme court has fixed Thursday, April 30, to deliver judgement in an appeal filed by David Mark, national chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), over the leadership tussle in the country.

The appeal, marked SC/CV/180/2026, was listed for judgement on the website of the supreme court and indicated that the date has been communicated to parties in the suit.

In the notice judgement would commence at 2 pm.

Mark, who is leading a faction of the ADC, is challenging the March 12 ruling of the court of appeal, which ordered parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum in a suit instituted by aggrieved party members.

In the appeal, the former senate president argued that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by intervening in what he described as the internal affairs of a political party.

Continue Reading

Trending