Now, from the undisputed facts, the Defendant, Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye, twice served as Governor and Chief Executive Officer of Plateau State. From Exhibit P1, the Letter from the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice dated the 20th of September 2004 to the Central Authority, United Kingdom, referred to the Defendant as a Public Officer while asking to Freeze the Bank Accounts opened in Breach of the Code of Conduct Forms for Public Officers, as well as his Executive Act seen in Exhibit P4, the Letter written and signed by him under the Letterhead Paper of the Executive Governor, Plateau State Government of Nigeria and from his Schedule of Duties defined in the Constitution and by his Oath of Office, he is clearly a Public Officer for the purposes of this Section. As Executive Governor of Plateau State from 1999 to 2007 (taking aside the Period of his Impeachment), he performed Public Functions, was paid from Public Funds and was Empowered by the Law to carry out Public Duties for the benefit of the Public, and did exercise some amount of Authority of Function on behalf of the Federal Government of Nigeria. The Defendant also had a Relatively Fixed Tenure of Office with some sense of Permanency or Continuity and by the Oral and Documentary Exhibits, which confirm that the Defendant served as Executive Governor, the Defendant is found by the Court to qualify as a Public Servant/Officer for the purposes of this Trial and the Court further finds, in the absence of contrary evidence, that this 1st Essential Element has been satisfied throughout all the Counts1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23. THE PROSECUTION’S SECOND DUTY TO PROVE: ENTRUSTMENT OR DOMINION The Second Essential Element necessary to Ground this Offence is the proof by the Prosecution that in his Capacity as a Public Servant, holding a Public Office, the Defendant was entrusted with the Monies or with Dominion over the Monies. After considering the Submissions and Arguments under this Head, it is clear that before there can be Conviction on a Charge of Criminal Breach of Trust, there must be evidence of Entrustment and of Dishonest Misappropriation of what was entrusted. Reference is made to the Case of BATSARI VS KANO NATIVE AUTHORITY (1966) NRNLR PAGE 151 AT PAGES 152, 153. “To Entrust” and “To have Dominion” were stated disjunctively in the Penal Code. To Entrust means to assign responsibility for doing something to someone and also means to put something into someone’s care or protection. Dominion, on the other hand, means Sovereignty, Control over the Property and the Power or Right of Governing or Controlling that Property. As earlier set out above, by Section 5(2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended), confers Wide Executive Powers on the Defendant and it is not necessary to show that the Property was that of the Government or of his Employer. The Offence can be committed in respect of any Property entrusted to the Public Servant in his capacity as such. See the case of AKWULE VS THE QUEEN (1963) NNLR PAGE 105. ONU JSC IN MARA VS THE STATE (2013) 3 NWLR (2012) 14 NWLR PT. 1320 PAGE 287 AT 318 AT 319 AT PARA C, held that the Defendant must be a Clerk or Servant or in such Capacity, of the Person reposing trust in him, and in that capacity, he was entrusted with the Property in question or with Dominion over it and had committed Breach of Trust in respect of it. See also the Cases of FRN VS NUHU & ANOR (2015) LPELR-26013 CA PER ABIRU JCA; AJIBOYE VS FRN (2014) LPELR24325 CA PER ALKALI JCA. 101