Law or Code of Behaviour, and is an Infringement, Transgression, Infraction, and Contravention of a Duty or Right, Interrupting or Disturbing the Natural Prescribed Order of Things. It can also mean the failure to do what is required or expected by a Law, Rule or Agreement, and it could occur when a Person crosses a Legal Boundary or a Binding Business Deal. In the instance of Violation of a Contract, it is synonymous with the Term “Breach of Contract” and could include many different types of Violations. Once a Contract is signed, the Parties are bound/obliged to keep their own part of the bargain, as failure to do so, can result in legal consequences. To excuse a Party from performing his or her own end of the bargain, under the Strict Regulating Guidelines of the Contract, that excuse or justification for the breach or errancy of the Terms of the Contract, imposes on the Party, the necessity of providing or adducing Legal Excuse recognizable by the Courts and Contract Law. Nothing else will suffice. Now, by the Circumstances of this Case, the Regulating Laws, Directives and Guidelines will be set out. Starting with the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended), the Seventh Schedule, which contains the Oath of Office of Governor of a State, states inter alia, “I, …do solemnly swear/affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria; that as Governor of…State, I will discharge my duties to the best of my ability, faithfully and in accordance with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Law… that I will strive to preserve the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy contained in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria… that I will not allow my Personal interest to influence my official conduct or my official decisions…; that I will abide by the Code of Conduct contained in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria…; and I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of Nigeria. So help me God” Now, the Court will initially refer to the Case of AKINBOBOLA VS THE STATE (1991) 8 NWLR PT 208 191 AT 207, whereit was held that the Constitution must be construed to give effect and force to ALL the Provisions otherwise its Purposes would not be Served. Further, reference is made to the cases of OKHAE VS GOVERNOR OF BENDEL STATE & ORS (1990) 4 NWLR PT 144, 327 AT 366; ISHOLA VS AJIBOYE (1994) 6 NWLR PT 352, 506 AT 558-559; P.D.P. VS I.N.E.C. (1999) 71 LRCN 2465 AT 2518; I.M.B. SECURITIES PLC VS TINUBU (2001) 91 LRCN 3000 AT 3016; OBIH VS MBAKWE & 2 ORS (1984) 1 SC 325 AT 341 AND IFEZUE VS MBADUGHA (1984) 5 S.C. 79 AT 101. Since the Supreme Court have ruled that ALL Provisions must be given effect to, and the Court regards the Oath of Office as contained in the Seventh Schedule, to be an Undertaking, where the Defendant, either affirmed or swore to uphold, and can be said to be an Agreement between him and the People of Plateau State that he would carry out his Official Duties in Compliance with the Law. Therefore, he is expected to Comply, Obey and Issue out Lawful Directives in compliance with the Plateau State Financial Instructions of his State. Other Possible Violations could be from the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, the Relevant of Plateau State Laws including Financial Rules and Regulations; the Penal Code Law; the Bills of Exchange Act CAP. 35 Laws of the Federation 1990 in regard to the Central Bank of Nigeria Cheque and Other Cheques. 107