“I am unable to see how this disbursement has disclosed any dishonest misappropriation. Did Joshua Dariye misappropriate it for himself, if yes, no such evidence was adduced; the Prosecution has not shown that all Payments made to the various Persons or Companies, were for a particular purpose, that (sic) for which the Monies were meant for Plateau State Government. The payment of N80, 000, 000. 00 in favour of the Union Savings and Loans Limited and the submission (sic) transactions made thereon add up to nothing as Joshua Dariye was not called to state why the payment was made and neither was Dan Elechi called to testify. It is my respectful view that at this stage, it is difficult to hold that the Prosecutor has made out a case of conspiracy and abetment under Counts 3 and 4 of the Charge…” It is clear from the above, that the facts and evidence concerning Misappropriation by the Defendant was not brought to the fore by the Prosecution and so, no definite pronouncement could be made as concerning SPECIFICALLY CHIEF JOSHUA CHIBI DARIYE. In any event, the contention in that case, did not directly concern the Defendant because he could not abet himself, nor could he be charged with accepting a Cheque from himself. It is also clear that the Bankers were facing Four Counts of Charges. The First Two Offences were brought under Sections 85 and 97(1) of the Penal Code for Abetment and Conspiracy. The Last Two Offences were brought under Section 3(3) (a) of the Miscellaneous Offences Decree, As Amended for Fraudulently or Knowingly Altering, Forging, Procuring, Accepting or Presenting a Cheque with the knowledge that it was false, forged, stolen or unlawfully procured; and Section 10(6) of the same Decree was in regard to Conspiracy for the Offence in Section 3(3). The Offence of Criminal Misappropriation arose because the Bankers were charged with aiding Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye to commit Criminal Misappropriation. The Prosecution failed to establish the fact that they AIDED, because the Bankers certainly could not be said to AID what was NOT established by evidence as well as the absence of the Principal Offender and this fact was recognised by the Judge. For the Bankers to be liable for Aiding the Misappropriation, it had to be established that there was a Criminal Synergy between them and Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye, who critically was not a Participant at the Trial, either as a Witness or as a CoAccused. It is not inconceivable to deduce that the Class or Type of Evidence needed to establish the Offence of Abetment etc., is not the Class or Type of Evidence needed to ground a Conviction for Criminal Breach of Trust and Criminal Misappropriation. One thing is for sure, the Elements or Ingredients for these Offences are materially different. It is noted further upon a close look at Sections 3 and 10 of the Miscellaneous Offences Decree As Amended by the Tribunals (Certain Consequential Amendment etc.,) Decree, there was no Prescription for the Offences of Criminal Breach of Trust or Criminal Misappropriation under Sections 315 and 309 of the Penal Code Act and neither were they elements to be established by the Prosecution in their regard. There is also the fact that as at the Year2005, when the Ruling in the FHC/KD/144C/2004 was delivered, the Defendant was still serving as the Executive Governor of Plateau State and was enjoying the benefit of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, which placed a restriction on Legal Proceedings against certain Class of Public Officers, specified in Section 308(3) of the 1999 Constitution. In ABACHA VS FRN (2014) LPELR-22014 (SC), ONNOGHEN JSC (NOW CJN) AT PAGES 70, 71 PARA B, held that, “the purpose of immunity is to allow the incumbent President or Head of State or 24