The issue at hand is whether the action of the President amounts to gross misconduct so as to trigger S.143 of the Constitution. It is my view that a mere breach of a provision of the constitution is not enough to trigger S.143 or cause 'gross misconduct' but an action which exposes the holder of the office to opprobrium.

Though, S.80 of the C.F.R.N has not been complied with, the President has not acted outside the scope of his powers by purchasing aircraft for National Security especially in this critical period we find ourselves. What is involved here is procedural ultra-vires by not seeking the approval of the legislature hitherto.

I do not think we can successfully talk of gross misconduct leading to impeachment without looking outside the act in scrutiny or circumstances surrounding such action. (before & after). The President's letter to the Senate shows the intention of the President to beat the deadline set by the U.S Government in which part payment must be made.(let's take into cognizance the state of our national security). The money was also immediately paid into the treasury of the United States Government. Maybe we should describe 'overzealousness' as it relates to national security as being responsible for the president's action.

I believe this is not in anyway the same as withdrawing $496m from the excess crude account for the purpose of siphoning or keeping the money in a foreign account for the President's selfish interest.

Though, the provisions of S.80 which States that the approval of the legislature must be sought before any withdrawal is made from the excess crude account has not been complied with, I do not in anyway intend to undermine the provisions of that section. Just that a mere breach of a provision of the constitution would not necessarily amount to 'gross misconduct'. If the President's act is termed a misconduct, I might agree but not 'gross misconduct' within the purview of S.143. It would have been a different case entirely if the holder of the office in flagrant disregard of the law continuously and consistently undermines the legislature who are the representatives of the people.

Even though the C.F.R.N gives room for division of powers, power tussle/clash/friction between the executive and legislature is one of the effects of the system of government we practice which I think is healthy for our democracy. Same is currently happening in the U.S and U.K where Trump and Theresa May have been questioned by the respective legislative bodies for refusing to seek their approval in certain cases.

Lastly, I do not know why Senator Matthew Uroghide who moved a motion at the plenary on Thursday, specifically urged the President of the Senate, Bukola Saraki TO ALLOW the chamber TO INVOKE S.143 of Constitution as the section is very clear on the steps necessary to invoke the provisions of that section. The first step is that "WHENEVER a notice of any allegation in writing signed by not less than one-third of the members of the National Assembly is presented to the President of the Senate, stating that the holder of the office of President or vice-president is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office, detailed particulars of which shall be specified, the president of the Senate SHALL within seven days of the receipt of the notice cause a copy thereof to be served on the holder of the office and on each member of the National Assembly, and SHALL also cause any statement made in reply to the allegation by the holder of the office to be served on each member of the National Assembly ".
The Section does not in anyway confer discretionary powers on the Senate President on whether or not to allow the members of the house invoke S.143 of the C.F.R.N. It does not matter the law with which they govern their affairs on the floor of the house as the Constitution remains the grand norm. S.1(3) of the Constitution makes it crystal clear that "If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void". The elected members of the legislatures are supposedly the representatives and mouthpiece of the people on the floor of the house, so not allowing them to take action where abuse is conceived under the guise of any law inconsistent with the Constitution would be in flagrant disregard for the rights of the citizens who are supposedly being represented.

BossDanniee:
Ola Rotimi

Playwright, director. head of department of creative arts at the University of Port
Harcourt, Lecturer at Obafemi Awolowo University , Nigeria; has also served as visiting professor playwright, and director in Germany and Italy, as well as at DePauw University and Wabash College.

Cc; Lalasticlala

Ola Rotimi was born in Delta state doesn't mean he's from Delta. His ethnicity remains Yoruba as confirmed by Wikipedia

kenzysmith:
wetin nnf do una again na shey na dey play the ball for field keshi is still the course nothing go make us employ dat guy again nnf pls get us a good foreign coach

No one is asking for Keshi's reinstatement. My fear is that even if a foreign coach is hired, he may not be able to deliver under the terrible working conditions or he might be frustrated out of the job just like Oliseh(forget about the amount they claim to pay in the press.) Oliseh did not know beyond criticizing Keshi yet he couldn't work under the terrible working conditions. We lost the game outside the pitch not on the pitch. Let's stop changing coaches in between qualification & let's try to give our coaches a long term plan. See how long the German coach has been there. Even when they didn't do too well at the 2010 world cup, the coach was still retained and we later saw the result. In short, let our administrators get things right. They should also stop owing our coaches.

Is Keshi still the problem? I laugh in Spanish. That is what happens when you leave the fate of millions of Nigerians in the hands of nonentities. People who know little or nothing about the round leather game. People who see the football federation as a means to amass wealth rather than development of the game. What more can you expect when you have three different coaches in between a qualification with different set of players. It shows our level of seriousness and unreasonableness. A situation where coaches are without accommodation and are owed six months salary is pathetic yet they are not expected to complain. Nonentities should leave our football and let ex footballers who know about the game take over. I hail Siasia for his courage to take over the team three weeks to a crucial match. I hail the players for their commitment. Woe unto the administrators of our football who have made it a commonplace to toy with the emotions of 170 million Nigerians. For now, I rest my case.

Realisticman:
Vote Yahaya Bello a.k.a fair plus for governor of Kogi state. Who ever is aggrieved should quietly go to court and stop constituting themselves as nuisance.
Falake should first sue INEC for declaring the election inconclusive, then AGF for asking telling INEC to conduct a supplementary election, INEC again for telling the APC to substitute a candidate and finally sue APC for not fielding him. As simple as that.

There's nothing wrong in INEC asking APC to substitute a candidate since the nominated governorship candidate is no more. They did not ask APC to nominate Bello. Who APC nominates is not Inec's business. INEC cannot reject any candidate cos they don't have the right under the law. It's the responsibility of the court to decide if a candidate is eligible or not.

nicklaus40:

I get ur point, but INEC made no mistake, d law is simple, as long as the No of cancelled votes is more dan d margin the election should be declared inconclusive. I knw it's quite different frm taraba, buh I made mention of taraba just to explain the technicality of the issue. Presenting Faleke is a technical blow out to APC, had it bin d election was concluded no doubt it's Faleke's position

I also get your point. it's about those with pvc's. They are just 25,000 while the margin between both candidates is about 41,000. Not all voters were able to get pvc's, so there's no way the rest(apart from the 25,000 can vote) The election is alread won and lost

nicklaus40:

Faleke is nt d deputy Gov elect, it is am inconclusive election, we can't use common sense to change the law, a party must conduct a primaries before dey cn present a candidate, in a case of consensus, certain conditions must be met e.g oda members willing to contest must step down. It is sure APC has won d election buh had it been INEC declared Audu d winner den no problem going with Faleke, if APC presents Faleke now, it is a technical mistake wich dey are going to regret in d long run, dey stand no chance of winning d case in court, look at taraba, dat is a gud example of what am talking abt

The case of taraba and Kogi are quite different. PDP in Kogi state did not follow due process(as stipulated by the electoral act) in nominating a candidate. Section 78 (b) (1)(2) . Also, the suppose primary election in the state took place after the statutory stipulated time for primaries had elapsed. The court held that since Mr.Ishaku of PDP was not duly sponsored by the PDP, the party had no candidate in the governorship election in the eyes of the law. Section 87(9) is v. clear that where a party fails to nominate a candidate according to the provisions of the electoral act(conducts her primary in violation) that party's candidate would not be included on the ballot. So, in the eyes of the law, pdp never had a candidate for the gubernatorial election.(they were not qualified to present a candidate in the first place). Since they were not qualified to present a candidate as its flagbearer for the election, that candidate was also not qualified to nominate another person as his deputy since the party was not qualified to take part in the election. So, the idea of his deputy replacing him in the taraba election is totally out of it. (Fault of the party not candidate). In the case of Kogi their candidates were nominated according to the provisions of the electoral act.(They are two different scenarios). My insistence on Faleke is not just because he was Audu's running mate but because before INEC declared the election inconclusive, it was crystal clear a winner had emerged regardless of the result of the supplementary election. INEC was wrong to have declared the elections inconclusive. Even some renowned legal practitioners have faulted Inec for declaring the results inconclusive.

nicklaus40:
U are wrong, if Faleke represents APC den dey are going to lose at the court on technical grounds, exactly like d taraba election... d constitution states that a candidate must go thru d process of primary election before being presented and Faleke never contested in any primaries. D only way Faleke can rep APC is if anoda primaries is conducted but dat is nt possible, d supplementary election is on Saturday and for u to conduct a primary election a political party must gv INEC 21 days notice wich is not possible in dis case, so the best option is to go for the runner up...Pls dnt insult me and argue construvctively, I actually prefer Faleke to Yahaya buh the law is supreme....

The constitution does not state that a candidate MUST go through the process of primary election before the general election. What the constitution says in section 32 of the electoral act is that political parties are to submit the list of candidates it intends to sponsor at the election. What this means is that there's no room for independent candidacy & any candidate that intends to go for an elective post must belong to a political party. How the party picks its candidate is the sole business of the party. It's just that most political parties have adopted primary elections as the norm in order to avoid conflict or prevent the issue of one candidate not stepping down for another. For example, Apc in Lagos usually pick its candidate for governorship election through consensus. The deputy cannot take part in the primary because its the responsibility of the governorship candidate to pick his running mate. Faleke can represent APC because the constitution recognizes the fact that both deputy and governorship candidate are both elected which makes provision for the deputy to take over in case the governor can no longer continue with his responsibility at any point in time. (section 181)

Ever since the news of the demise of the All progressives congress(APC) gubernatorial candidate in the Kogi election rent the air, there has been much imbroglio both within and outside the state. Legal practitioners have tried to proffer solution to this quagmire from their point of view as to the next line of action to follow. It is worthy of note that such has never happened in the political history of Nigeria, that while election is ongoing a candidate should drop dead. Little wonder the constitution does not categorically state what should follow in such instance. The electoral act vividly states what should follow in the event that a nominated candidate dies before election commences while the Nigerian constitution also states what should follow in the event that a person duly elected as governor dies before taking the oath of office or oath of allegiance. Section 33 of the electoral act states that "In the event that a person that has been duly nominated as a candidate of his party dies BEFORE THE ELECTION, then the political party has the right to replace him with another candidate and not necessarily the Deputy Governorship candidate." WHY BEFORE THE ELECTION? It's no other reason other than the fact that the constitution recognizes the fact that election hasn't commenced, which in actual sense means that none of the candidates has been voted for or no votes yet accrued to the nominated candidate which makes it possible for the party to pick a new candidate. As regards SECTION 181(1) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) "If a person duly elected as governor dies before taking and subscribing the oath of allegiance and oath of office, or is unable for any reason whatsoever to be sworn in, the person elected with him as Deputy Governor shall be sworn in as Governor and he shall nominate a new Deputy Governor..." WHY DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE DEPUTY GOVERNOR SHOULD BE SWORN IN IF THE PERSON DULY ELECTED AS GOVERNOR IS UNABLE TO CONTINUE EVEN BEFORE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AND OFFICE IS TAKEN? The constitution clearly recognizes the fact that the votes cast belongs to both the Governor and Deputy Governor. The constitution does not see the Deputy Governor as being appointed unlike ministerial positions but elected alongside the Governor by the votes of the electorate. Section 187(1) of the Nigerian constitution further buttress my point. According to results declared by the Kogi returning officer, Emmanuel Kucha (VC of the university of Agriculture, Makurdi), Abubakar Audu of the All progressives congress(APC) was able to garner 240,867 votes while Idris Wada of PDP garnered 199,514 votes. It means the margin of votes between Abubakar Audu and Idris Wada is 41,353. The total number of voters in 91 polling units in 18 local government areas where election is cancelled is 49,953. The total number of voters with pvc's is 25,000 which means that even if they all go out in mass to vote for Idris Wada of PDP, which is practically impossible, the election in Kogi state is already done and dusted. There is also the certainty that not all voters with pvc's would turn up on election day as is the case with previous elections in Nigeria. What this means is that even before INEC declared the elections inconclusive, Abubakar Audu of APC had emerged the winner of the election. The supplementary election scheduled to take place is just to 'fulfill all righteousness'. Abubakar Audu of APC had emerged the winner of the poll regardless of the outcome of the supplementary election. This is synonymous with what happened in the last presidential election when former president Jonathan put a call through to Buhari to congratulate him when all results had not been announced. It's common sense that it's not until the very last result is released before the people can recognize their winner. If Yahaya Bello replaces the late Audu as widely publicized, what it means is that after elections has been done and dusted and a winner has emerged, someone who did not take part in the election process is brought from nowhere to replace the late Abubakar Audu which is unconstitutional since he has a deputy and would create a very bad precedence. The constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria does not recognize an outsider(one who did not take part in an election process). That is why it states in section 181(2) that where the persons elected as Governor and Deputy Governor of a state die or for any reason unable to assume office before the inauguration of the house of assembly, INEC shall conduct an election for Governor and Deputy Governor of the state. The constitution does not say because it is the party that wins an election, a member of the party who did not take part in the election process should fill the vacum. Such practice is alien to our constitution as long as the deceased has a deputy. If for any reason APC would present a fresh candidate, this election would have to be nullified. There's a deputy so there's no room for such. Before I round off, my questions are as follows- (1). DID THE JOINT TICKET OF ABUBAKAR AUDU AND JAMES FALEKE GARNER 240,867 VOTES? (2). IS IT TRUE THAT IDRIS WADA OF PDP GARNERED 199,514 VOTES THEREBY CREATING A MARGIN OF 41,353? (3). IS IT TRUE THAT THE NUMBER OF VOTERS WITH PVC'S IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY ELECTION IS 25,000? If so, I put it to you that the candidature of Abubakar Audu/James Faleke had been elected winner of the Kogi election before Audu's death. I hereby urge James Faleke to resist every act of imposition by his party.