The Prosecution had alleged that the Defendant was entrusted with dominion over the Cheque. According to him, even if the Cheque was not handed over to the Defendant, and if the proceeds of the Cheque were not misappropriated, then it is immaterial that he was Governor of Plateau State at the time. Even if the proceeds of the Cheque were misappropriated, it would not constitute Criminal Breach of Trust if it were not done dishonestly. This was why the Law required that all the elements of the Offence created in the Statute, must be charged and proved. On the assumption that the Defendant was a Public Officer, there is no element in Count 1 showing he converted the Funds to his Personal use and the Prosecution did not even furnish any evidence in this regard. It was not necessary in every case to prove the precise manner the Defendant had dealt with or appropriated the Funds, as alleged. The Prosecution must be able to establish exactly how the Funds were misappropriated and to what the Funds were exactly used for. Furthermore, it was not an Offence for the Defendant to operate an Account in the name of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures in the same Bank where the Cheque was cleared, as mere operating an Account in a Bank was not an Offence. It was also not an Offence if the Defendant operated that Account in a Bank used by the State in which he was Governor. The Defendant, as Governor, delivered the Cheque of Plateau State Government to the Government’s Banker, who received, cleared the Cheque and applied the Funds therein, as directed by the Defendant. It was from the same Account that monies were paid to other Beneficiaries including the Government and Contractors of Plateau State. He surmised that if the payments from the said Account to the Government of Plateau State and its Contractors were legitimate, and not subject to punishment, then the mere delivery of the Cheque to AllStates Trust Bank Plc., cannot constitute Criminal Breach of Trust. There is no evidence on the basis of which the Court can come to the conclusion that the payments made to the Contractors of Plateau State Government, differed in any way from those, which are alleged in this Trial to constitute Criminal Breach of Trust. Apart from the above, another element not indicated in the Charge, is the Breach of the Law, Directive or Regulation, shown to have been violated, concerning the payment of the Cheque from one Particular Account to another. There was also no Breach of Terms through which the entrustment was said to have occurred. There was also the fact that the Defendant failed to pay the Cheque into the Account of the Plateau State Government and Learned Silk argued that the mere delivery of the Cheque to AllStates Trust Bank cannot constitute the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust or any other Offence, even on the assumption that AllStates Trust Bank Plc. was the Defendant’s Banker. The evidence led revealed that the Plateau State Government maintained an Account with AllStates Trust Bank Plc., which could be seen from Exhibit D6, the House Report, and particularly from the testimonies of the Accountant General of the Plateau State as well as that of DW1, Adonye Roberts. According to him, if the Governor of a State delivers a Cheque belonging to the State to a Bank, who received and applied its proceeds to meet the needs of the State, as directed by that Governor, there was no Offence. Going by the evidence of PW1, there was no evidence or Documents showing that the Cheque was paid into an Account other than an Account belonging to Plateau State Government. Therefore, no Offence could be said to have been committed, and this, yet again made the Charge bad for failing to state the Terms of the Entrustment. Learned Silk further submitted that from the House Reports in Exhibits D6 and D7, it was concluded that the Cheque and the circumstances of its release in Exhibit G, demonstrated that the Cheque was a Grant to the Plateau State Government, who, as opposed to the Federal Government, had absolute 59