The decision to ban phones and gadgets at the presidential election petition court in Abuja has sparked concerns about the transparency and live coverage of the proceedings. With the court set to rule on the possibility of live transmission, many citizens on social media express skepticism about the court’s intentions. The restriction on phones and gadgets is seen by some as an indication that the court may not favor a live telecast. While some remain hopeful, others believe that the court’s decision undermines transparency and accountability.
Restriction on Phones Raises Suspicion:
A notice on the door of the presidential election petition court at the Court of Appeal in Abuja states that phones and gadgets are not allowed inside the courtroom. The announcement by the appellate court secretary, stating the prohibition of phones and gadgets during court hearings, has further fueled doubts about the court’s commitment to transparency. Social media reactions reflect the belief of many citizens that the restriction on phones foreshadows the court’s position on live telecast.
Concerns Over Live Transmission:
The court is expected to rule on the possibility of live transmission of the election petition. However, the ban on phones and gadgets has led to speculation that the court may not allow live coverage. Twitter users express disappointment, suggesting that the court may not be on the side of the people and may lack transparency in its proceedings. Some even claim that the court’s decision is an early indication of its stance on live telecast.
Desire for Openness and Accountability:
Nigerians have shown a strong desire to participate in the proceedings of the electoral tribunal. Many citizens record and share updates on the hearings and eagerly await the court’s verdict on the Labour Party’s live broadcast petition. Twitter users emphasize the need for openness and accountability, urging the court to rule in favor of live broadcasting on TV. They argue that the public has a right to know what is happening in the court.
Hopefulness and Mixed Opinions:
While concerns dominate the discussions, some individuals remain hopeful for a positive outcome. They believe that live broadcasts on TV stations and the prohibition of phones are separate issues, and there is no need to jump to conclusions. They differentiate between phone recordings and allowing the media team into the court for live streaming. This group maintains a more optimistic view and waits to see how the court’s decision unfolds.
The ban on phones and gadgets at the presidential election petition court has raised concerns about transparency and live coverage of the proceedings. Social media reactions suggest skepticism regarding the court’s intentions and its potential denial of live transmission. The desire for openness and accountability among Nigerians is evident, as they call for the court to rule in favor of live broadcasting. While some remain hopeful, others view the ban on phones as a negative sign for transparency and the court’s impartiality. The court’s ruling on live coverage will ultimately determine the level of transparency and public participation in this important legal process.