Case Law and by the Principles of Stare Decisis, Nigerian Authorities rank higher in priority and Applications and are binding on all Lower Courts. Learned Silk, Kanu Agabi SAN also submitted that differences between Nigerian and Foreign Decision, including that of English Courts, had never suggested that the Nigerian Decision is per incuriam or wrong and the only recognizable circumstance where a foreign decision is preferred, is when Supreme Court finds its own decision on a Point of Law to be wrong, citing the case of ARAKA VS EGBUE (SUPRA) AT PAGE 31 PARAS A-E PER TOBI JSC; CARRIBEAN TRADING & FIDELITY CORPORATION VS NNPC (1992) 7 NWLR PART 252 PAGE 161. Finally, Learned Silk representing the Defendant argued that the technical words conveyed in the phraseology “committed a Criminal Breach of Trust”,” denotes a vague expression and its repetitious use by the Prosecution clearly showed that the element of dishonesty was not charged. This informed the Appellate Courts in their decisions to explicitly state that dishonesty, is an element for the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust and had never approved the use of such words described as being technical, to suffice when stating out the elements of an Offence. Therefore, elements of an Offence should not be left to mere assumptions and speculations. Now, the Court finds it clear that by the time the Original Charges were framed, the Governing Law was the Criminal Procedure Code 1960 and not the newly promulgated Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. Following the Amendment of the Charges on the 9th of May 2016, the Drafting of Charges was fully governed by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. In a newly delivered Judgment of the Supreme Court dated the 26th day of January 2018, AKA’AHS JSC in the case of GABRIEL DAUDU VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2018) SUIT NO: SC.172/2017, held inter alia that it is the Substantive Law in operation at the time an Offence is said to have been committed that has to be referred to, when a Person is being charged to Court but the Procedural Law to be used, would be the Current One. Thus, if the Evidence Act or the Criminal Procedure Law has been Amended or Replaced, and a new one is in place at the time of Trial, it is the Amended or Newly Enacted Evidence Act/ Criminal Procedure Code that will be used to guide the Trial, notwithstanding that the Offence was committed before the Promulgation of the new Procedural Law. Therefore, this Court would, resort to the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. Under Section 195 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, which replaced Chapter XIX AT Section 201 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it states that the fact that a Charge is made, is equivalent to a Statement that every legal condition required by Law to constitute the Offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case. This is a legal presumption. Under Section 194(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, a Charge shall state the Offence with which the Defendant is charged. It did not say that a Charge shall set out the Ingredients of the Offence and all it required is the Offence. Section 194(2)(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, formerly Section 201 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, states that “If the Law which creates the Offence gives it any Specific Name, the Offence may be described in the Charge by that Name Only. The Offence should be stated in its ordinary name and not in its technical name. 34