Under Section 194(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, formerly Section 201 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, itstates that the Law and Section of the Law against which the Offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the Charge. Section 196(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, on its own part states, “The Charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged Offence and the Defendant, if any, against whom or the thing, if any, in respect of which it was committed as are reasonably sufficient to give the Defendant notice of the Offence with which he is charged.” Section 200(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, provides, “In a Charge, words used in describing the Offence are deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them, respectively, in the Law creating the Offence.” The Author of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Northern States of Nigeria, Jeffrey Richard Jones, erstwhile Chief Judge of Kano State, analyzed this Section, stating that normally, it is the Punishment Section alone that is stated in the Charge, and it was a correct practice with regard to the Penal Code. See Appendix B of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Author further stated that where a Statute creates a number of offence in different Sections and then combines the punishments for two or more of them in a single separate Section, as in the Road Traffic Regulations, then it is better for the Charge to state both the Section creating the Offence and the Punishment Section. It is to be noted that the word “MAY” in Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code is discretionary and not mandatory. In setting out the essential ingredients for Breach of Trust, he also had used the word “Criminal Breach of Trust ” and had not specifically used the word “Dishonestly”. So also the Supreme Court in the case of ONOGWU VS THE STATE (1995) 6 NWLR PT 401, 276 AT 291, who had in this case, used the same phrase, without the word, “Dishonestly.” It is advisable to employ the exact words used by the Particular Section of the Law, which created the Offence in the Counts. In ADISA VS A-G, WESTERN NIGERIA (1965) 1 ALL NLR 412, the accused was charged with murder, in an information at the High Court. The Statement of Offence stated that the accused “murdered” the deceased but the Particulars of Offence alleged that the accused “unlawfully killed” the deceased. During the trial, the Particulars of Offence was amended to read ‘murdered’ instead of ‘unlawfully killed’. The accused was convicted. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Charge as originally laid was defective because the Particulars ought to have stated that the accused murdered the deceased, and so the amendment was necessary. However, a Count that uses words different from the exact words used by the Law is not unlawful. Provided that the accused Person is not misled by the different words used in the Count. See also the Cases of ASUQUO VS THE STATE (1967) 1 ALL NLR 123; MGBEMENE VS INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE (1963) 2 SCNLR 261. IN OGBODU VS THE STATE (1987) 2 NWLR (PT. 54) 20, on similar facts, the Supreme Court rejected the contention and held that although the Precedents in the Third Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Act employs the word ‘murdered’ instead of ‘unlawfully killed’ for its precedent charge for murder, nonetheless it is permissible to use the expression ‘Unlawfully Killed’ instead of ‘Murder’, because the former expression encompasses both Murder and Manslaughter by virtue of Section 315 of the Criminal Code. The Court concluded that the Charge was not defective and that the Appellant was not misled because he knew he was being tried for Murder and he defended a Charge of Murder. The Appeal was dismissed. The Rule against Ambiguity states that Charges must be clear to the extent as to give a Defendant adequate notice of the Offence for which he is charged. It applies to Counts of alleged Offences and not 35