the Executive Governor of Plateau State titled, “EXECUTIVE REPORT AND QUOTATION FOR PLATEAU STATE TELEVISION, FM AND AM RADIO STATION”. In this Letter, Pinnacle Communications Limited informed the Executive Governor, on the Survey conducted by its Technical Team in regard to the above Subject Matter and a Report was referred to, containing a Minimal Budget that would improve coverage and better reception. On the face of this Letter, the Defendant as Executive Governor minuted to the General Manager Plateau Radio and Television Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the PRTV”), on the 28th of May 2001, instructing the General Manager to analyze this Submission and advise along with Previous Submissions. The Question must be asked, why would Pinnacles Communications Limited, a Prospective Contractor with the Plateau State Government, confer with the Executive Governor on what was conducted by its Technical Team on the existing PRTV Television and FM and AM Radio Station? Another Question is, since there were other Submissions, as seen hereunder, from other Prospective Contractors, what made Pinnacles Communications Limited believe that its Budget for the Purchase of the Television and FM and AM Radio Station, was minimal or competitive in comparison to the rest? Further, there is no Document before this Court, showing an Initial Process, where either the PRTV or the Ministry of Information, wrote a Memo directly to the Executive Governor or indirectly, through the Secretary to the State Government, who then had a duty to forward it to the Executive Governor for his Approval to Upgrade the PRTV Television and Radio Station. According to DW13, Dr. Patrick Datum, the erstwhile Commissioner of Information, he stated that Capital Projects would usually have a Memo. He then narrated the Procedure for the Award of Contracts at his Ministry either through Competitive Bidding or a Search for the Relevant Contractor, in the event the Items are not commonly available. Usually, a Technical Committee is set up, who makes Recommendations directly to the Office of the Governor or through the Office of the Secretary to the State Government or through him. The Ministry reviews the Recommendations, and then writes to the Executive Governor or Submits a Memo to the Executive Council (herein referred to as “EXCO”), who approves. A Ministry could also present its Recommendations for Approval by the EXCO and none of the Approval from either the Governor or EXCO, was determined by the Contract Sum involved. Upon Approval, Payment Order, Approval or an Award Letter is conveyed to the Contractor and depending on the Agreement, the Project commences. For Purchase of Equipment, the Award Letter would include all the requirements such as the Name of the Contractor, Amount awarded and Payments. His Ministry was not responsible for generating a Letter for the Award of Contract, as it was the duty of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, to issue the Award Letter as well as make Payments. In this instance, all that is before the Court as a Starting Trail is Exhibit D22, which appears to bethe CATALYST that kick-started an Administrative Process. The buck started with the Defendant, as Executive Governor, when he received this Exhibit D22 and acted on it by Minutingthe Letter to the General Manager of the PRTV, on the 28th of May 2001. The next line of communication is Exhibit D24, dated the 29th of May 2001, written by Mr. Joseph Ari (KSM), the General Manager of the PRTV to the Executive Governor. The Reference Number is REF N0: CN/565/VOL.V/772 titled, “RE: URGENT NEED FOR THE UPGRADING OF PRTV EQUIPMENT” 146