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.