![]() Often it just leads to a very similar show to the one made the previous year. What it creates is a progression to bigger spaces on the fringe but not necessarily a progression to better work. So they will nurture the companies who can prove that they can sell tickets by offering them maybe a slightly better deal the following year in a slightly bigger space. That’s how they make money and cover the rent they pay to landlords such as the University of Edinburgh and the costs of setting up venues every year. Venues need the companies performing in their spaces to sell tickets. There might be another factor at play and that is the role of Edinburgh venues and those who programme them. ![]() ![]() I suspect that European companies, in contrast, bring over pre-existing shows that they think might be good for Edinburgh. It’s maybe not the show they really want to make, but one that they hope will be a crowd-pleaser at the festival, not lose them too much money and may get picked up to tour. I suspect that’s because many young British companies think they must go to Edinburgh to get noticed, and so they are much more likely to make a show with Edinburgh in mind. But when I compare the international work at Edinburgh with the shows made in the UK, it’s the latter that often seemed to be playing it safe. The costs of coming to Edinburgh are now so great that the instinct to not take too much of a risk is always going to be a strong one. In the last couple of weeks, the courts have dismissed several cases brought against Asiwaju Tinubu by opposition elements, including Action Alliance, for being frivolous, lacking in merit and abuse of court processes.A lack of ambition strikes me as the real problem that afflicts young companies and it’s one that I have particularly noticed this year. The court on Monday upheld the defense counsel’s objections and struck out the case. The counter affidavit also punctured Ihuoma’s case as academic, theoretical and an abuse of court process. It sought a court declaration that the case was speculative, pre-emptive and non-justiciable being the internal affairs of a political party. “The counter affidavit challenged Ihuoma’s locus standi and grounds for the action. In defense of the suit, the law office of Babatunde Ogala (SAN) & Co on behalf of All Progressives Congress filed a counter affidavit in opposition to the Originating Summons and a Notice of Preliminary Objection. He sought for six reliefs, which included INEC barring Tinubu from contesting the 2023 presidential election. Ihuoma dragged Tinubu and five others to court on 9 June, 2022 after the former Lagos State Governor won the APC presidential primary election. He therefore dismissed the case for being speculative after APC’s counsel, Julius Ishola Esq from Babatunde Ogala & Co, had urged the Court to dismiss it with heavy cost for wasting judicial time. Providing better insight, APC Campaign Council explains “In the latest case, suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/854/2022, Justice Fadima Aminu Muritala described the plaintiff, Elder Ngozika Ihuoma as a “meddlesome interloper having no locus standi to institute the suit”. The statement further disclosed that, “It was the fourth case to be dismissed by the courts in recent weeks.” “A case challenging the candidacy of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has been dismissed by the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.” a statement by Bayo Onanuga, Director of Media & Publicity of the APC Presidential Campaign Council revealed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |