result of the Monitoring Court Order from Barclays Bank, who, on the Defendant’s use of his Visa Card to pay for his Lodgment at the Marriot Hotel, alerted him of the Defendant’s arrival into the United Kingdom. He stated that prior to his retirement, his relationship with the EFCC was Official, and he had visited Nigeria over Thirty-Five (35) times to give evidence. Presently, he is not under the instruction of the National Crimes Agency but of his freewill, he is in Nigeria to help. In 2004, he started this investigation in London and like any good Police Officer, he wanted to see it through to the end and maintained that he had no Personal interest. Mr. Peter Clark further testified that he had appeared before an Impeachment Investigation Panel constituted to impeach the Defendant in 2006 but was never confronted with any Court Order or such Order restraining the Panel in Jos, Plateau State from Sitting. According to him, the Panel Proceedings were unproductive for investigations because of the Protracted Arguments on Admissibility of Evidence, the fact that he was never asked questions relating to his evidence and as a result, never got the chance to conclude his evidence. According to him, the Trial was deliberately stalled bearing in mind that the Panel was aware of his time constraints in Nigeria. However, he was aware that the Panel eventually impeached the Defendant but that both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court set aside his Impeachment. Mr. Peter Clark stated that after the Defendant was released on Bail, he signed an Undertaking, and was given Three (3) Months to report back to the Metropolitan Police in the United Kingdom, but the Defendant did not Personally contact him. The Defendant through his Lawyer, Mr. Nwabueze, had written explaining why his Client, the Defendant would not be able to return. Therefore, he had breached the Bail Act of 1976. It was only Christabel Bentu, who had written back to him, stating her inability to return to London. Upon the Defence Counsel’s representation justifying the Defendant breaching his Bail Terms, on the Grounds of a State of Emergency in Plateau State, and the Defendant’s eventual return into Office, Mr. Clark replied not being aware and would likely have given another date for return, had he been notified. The genesis of investigating the Defendant was never as a result of an Official Complaint but seizure of cash from Mr. Mekwunye, who revealed to him that the owner of the Money was the Defendant. He noted that Joyce Oyebanjo, who did not own the Money in her Bank Account, was prosecuted and convicted on account that the Money belonged to the Defendant but he was not aware whether Mr. Mekwunye (which fraud was entirely different from the cash found in his possession) was prosecuted for the Credit Card Fraud. Mr. Clark’s singular interest was to know where the cash had come from, because he suspected it to be as a result of Money Laundering. He agreed coming to Nigeria on the invitation of the EFCC and stated that the National Crimes Agency was fully aware of his presence in Nigeria and had paid for his flight and accommodation, although there was no written evidence of this. Shown Exhibits V1-V3, the Cheques dated 21st September 2004, he could only tell that the Defendant had opened a Barclays Account in 1995 and had Nine (9) different Accounts with the Bank. However, he could not tell when the Account from which the Three Cheques emanated from, were opened by 69