Public Funds for the benefit of Plateau State Government and the Court finds that the Defendant was entrusted both by the Federal Government as an Executor and also by the People of Plateau State over the Ecological Funds. This established a Fiduciary Relationship between the People of Plateau State and the Defendant. As regards the Element of Entrustment for the Funds of Plateau State Government, the Defendant is found to have been entrusted with the Proper Execution of the Funds in the Account of the Accountant General of Plateau State and any Other Organ of Plateau State Government and was the Approving Authority for the Expenditure of the State Funds, exercising Dominion and Control over those Funds. In other words, the Federal Government of Nigeria, being the Owner of the Money, the “Property”, freely reposed confidence in the Plateau State Government by committing the Budgetary Allocations to the State as well as entrusting the State with the Ecological Funds, on the assurance that Plateau State Government would render Proper Accounts for the use of the Money. It can safely be implied that Plateau State Government, then assumed control and the Officers who can be liable, are the Officers that affected the Disbursement/Disposal of that Money. To this extent, the Actual Person, who took the Decisions to Disburse the Funds in the manner he did, can be said to have had been entrusted with Control and Dominion. In short, the Defendant rightfully had Possession, but not Ownership. With the assumption that the Defendant understood Plateau State Laws, Regulations and Directives and Financial Regulations concerning Revenues, the appending of his Signature on the Letter of Instruction in his Official Capacity, shows that he had Dominion and Control over the Funds entrusted to him for the benefit of the People of Plateau State. The Defendant, as Governor, was Dominus Litis over Plateau State Funds, and only he could grant Approvals for their Disbursements. He indeed exercised Dominion and Control over the Movement and Expenditure of the Funds and this Element of Entrustment is found proved throughout Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 23, in respect of the Cheque from the Central Bank of Nigeria and in Counts 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21 in respect of Funds emanating from the Plateau State Government. PROSECUTION’S 3RD DUTY TO PROVE: VIOLATION OF LAW PRESCRIBING THE MODE OR LEGAL CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OR DIRECTIVE The Prosecution must establish that the Defendant, did soin violation of: i. Any Direction of Law or Directive prescribing the Mode in which such Trust is to be discharged; OR ii. Any Legal Contract touching the Discharge of such Trust; OR iii. He intentionally allowed some other Person(s) to do so OR commit the above stated. The Word “Violation” is a Terminal Issue and whether or not, there were Violations or not, the Court will initially set out the Law, Contracts, Rules, Regulations, or Directives, if any, and then in its Actual Determination of the Issues hereunder, the Court will then pronounce on whether from the facts and evidence adduced, the Defendant actually violated the Law or Contract. Violation of Law therefore is any Act (or, less commonly, failure to act) that fails to abide by Existing Law or something that needed to be treated with Respect. Some Acts, such as Fraud or Misappropriation, can violate both Civil and Criminal Laws. Violation is an Action taken in Breach of a 106