 No fewer than 8,000 Nigerians have signed a petition demanding live coverage of the proceedings of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The petition by citizen Jane Peter and addressed to the Honourable Justice Ulukayodi, Aruwala, the National Judicial Council and one other is titled Live Broadcasts, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, PEPT. The petitioners in their reasons for demanding that they allow the live coverage of the tribunal proceedings, they're saying that it will ensure transparency and openness in the conduct of the tribunal. The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal already gave an indication that it would consider the prayer of the People's Democratic Party and that of the Labour Party for a live broadcast of its proceedings. The Tribunal has set a date on the hearing or their decision as to whether they will be broadcasting live for every Nigerian to watch or bringing it into our homes or not. So we're not necessarily going to be debating on it but we're going to be talking mostly as to why it should be important or why it is important for Nigerians to participate in the live proceedings. But let me take you back to the elections, the February 2015 elections and all the things that transpired. The fact that INEC had made a promise that they were going to make sure that these elections were seamless, they would be as free and fair as possible, but then that was not necessarily the case because we had so many feeding problems. If the elections were to go better than they went in February and of course even the ones that came later in March, would there have been a need for people to have or for the cause that we're getting now for a live broadcast of what's happening in the tribunal? I think we'll get the question. I'm asking if the elections had gone as planned without all of the feeding problems, the violence and all of the questions that have been raised about INEC, would there have been a call like this for the proceedings to be made live? I mean we've had tribunals come and go but we've never had these kinds of calls. Thank you. Just like you said, the election has come and gone and the parties are the tribunals. So it would be a big remiss to go into the merits of the case and also begin to discuss matters that may eventually or ultimately come up at the tribunal. Speaking generally, I think there is this concept of open courts, which is to say that courts should be generally open to the public. They should be transparent. In fact there is a popular maxim that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. So I guess without the issues that happened before or during and after the election, probably and given the parties that are involved because especially the three key parties are very big political juggernauts you can say. So at any rate it will always be an exciting hearing. The stakes are very high. The parties are very strong. The personalities are very high profile. So you have all the stakes of a big drama really about to unfold. Let me ask, there are several people who have been talking about our democratic process and how we pick our leaders. And certain people have said that there is no point in voting if elections will be decided by courts. What are your thoughts on that? Yes, in principle that has always been a concern really to juries and even citizens generally because the expectation is that elections should be held. The processes should be pre and fair. The winners should emerge. Losers should come out winners knowing that the process is fair and transparent. So when you have free fair and credible election, those are the standard expectations. And we've also had such happen in other climes. And even in our climes we've had some candidates say I was beating black and blue. There's no point going to court. Congratulations you won. And even during this election we had it in maybe one or two states where they say I'm not contesting the election I lost. So to that extent that is good news. But I think the challenge will be for us to then begin to see that it goes very far and wide and becomes basically the norm in our political process. It doesn't become like an exception to the rule whereby the rule is we combating our thoughts with the election petitions virtually crippling the judicial process due to election petitions. I like how you're saying that we have to ensure but how do we ensure it? Because it looks like the elections always go a sudden way no matter. I mean even with what we saw leading up to the March 25th, February 25th elections, many people had thought that with all the preparations and the introduction of the beavers and all that INEC had put in place. And the level of participation that we saw across different political parties that things would have changed but then it still came out the same way we've always seen it. The same level of violence if not heightened. The same situation of people coming to destroy ballot boxes or people being told not to show up if they're not voted for certain political parties. If we've not in 2023 been able to one way or the other put that in the past how do we ensure that these election petitions don't continue? Because I mean of course there are some people who would perpetually go to court and try to defend what they call their mandate. But how do we ensure that the process at the polls is what ensures who seats at that chair or on that chair, I beg your pardon, at the end of the day? Yes. It's basically building institutions, the stakeholders respecting the processes, the willingness to say I lost and I abide by the outcome of the election and the opinion of the electorate. So it's really about virtually all the stakeholders and even the courts saying when you go to court if you have a bad case you have no business here. So fundamentally with the electoral commission, the political parties, even from the as you guys internal democracy because it even starts from there to see parties that don't even get to promote those who want but instead choose their own preferred persons or candidates. And we've seen a few occasions where the court, or virtually all the occasions, the court will strike sought down. So strong institutions, the participants, the politicians, blamed by the rules, the political parties, ensuring internal democracy. Of course, on election day, ensuring that everything goes as planned, the logistics, getting it right. And I think although people say we are a young democracy but since 1999 I think we ought to be making good progress. OK. There's something, there's a mantra that this election has thrown up, of course, the go to court mantra. And it's made a lot of people question the reliability on our judiciary. There's been a trust deficit between the average person and the courts. Before they used to be saying that the court of law in Nigeria was the last hope of the common person but as it is today I'm not certain if that's really something that the average person can hold on to. What are your thoughts? Our courts will always give justice really. Our courts will always give justice. But of course there are challenges because sometimes there are, for instance, technical rules. If you don't abide by those rules you may really have a good case but at the end of the day you may lose out. Even at the Supreme Court, Supreme Court has had to say this is a very sad situation. We have to just rule this way because we just can't help ourselves really. Our hands are tight because we have to follow the rules. So if the lawyers don't follow the rules of the game, of course they have to lose even if the litigant has a good case so we can't really blame the courts. Of course I agree with you that there are one or two instances where people have felt this ought to have gone the other way. But again, sometimes people will say, have you read the judgment? Have you seen the reasoning of the courts? So sometimes it's quite challenging but definitely in one or two cases even some jurists have felt no, it ought to have been a lot better. Finally, by yourself. I've done justice. Finally, because we have just two minutes to go, what is the hope of survival for our democracy in this country? I have spoken with a lot of people who have said that the media, civil society got me to get my PVC, got me to go out and line up on election day and I feel disappointed at the process that didn't change. It didn't reflect that my vote, I mean these are different kinds of respondents talking about how they felt after the elections. What is the hope of the survival of democracy in Nigeria in closing? I think the hope is high. The hope is high if again, like I said, the stakeholders commit to the process, commit to democracy and survival. They don't want to play pranks with the process whether it's judicial or otherwise. And then institutions like I said, doing exactly what they are supposed to do. The electorate doing exactly what they are supposed to do because of course the talks and all that, they are even part of the electorate. So why should you want to be a talk or prevent anybody from voting on election day? That's not proper. And again, if we are really to touch briefly on the issue of broadcast and all that, without going into the government of the issue, like I said, the concept of open courts. And people have said we've had this in South Africa, we've had it even in Kenya and so many other jurisdictions. But there are equally some technical issues about it. Even virtual hearing, the law is not family in place. The National Assembly has not passed that law. So again, yes, people will say, why not? You can actually give us this because even our worst case, if you don't allow TV cameras, you can say, okay, provide zoom links. You control that one. In fact, even the National Industrial Court and even the Court of Appeal, they've been delivering judgments and rulings via Zoom. But again, the other side may be saying there's a dominance of online abuse. How are you sure that even the judges will not be influenced by what they are watching on TV, what they are seeing, the comments online and all that. So at the end of the day, it will actually be a very interesting ruling that will add to our jurisprudence within the week. Well, I want to say thank you for speaking with us. We're all keeping our fingers crossed and we're waiting to hear what the tribunal's ruling will be on this particular issue of broadcast. But thank you so much for speaking with us. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. All right. Well, that's it on the show tonight. Don't forget, if you have missed any of our episodes, just go to Plus TV Africa on YouTube, subscribe and watch all our previous episodes and play catch up. I'm Mary Anacorn. Do you have a good evening.