Apart from that, the Court also notes from the testimony of Mr. Israel Dabel, that what the Team inspected at the Harris Factory in the United Kingdom, were Television Transmitters and ONE Radio Transmitter. Butas seen from the Approved Quotation of Pinnacle Communications, in its Executive Report and the Quotation attached to Exhibit D23, the PRTV Internal Memo,had made provision for Six (6) Transmitters to be stationed at Rayfield, Mangun and Dangkang in Plateau State. Therefore, someone needed to have entered the Witness Box to testify in this Regard, andthe Contractor would have been called or summoned to shed more light but this was never done. According to this Witness by the Month of December 2002, the Plateau State Government,was yet to receive delivery of their Equipment. This was a surprise, becausethe Execution of the Contract was estimated to be within Twenty-Four (24) Weeks, and not the One and a Half Years, it took from the Date of Award, the 5th of June 2001, where the Plateau State Government failed to honour its Financial Obligations. From the evidence before the Court, Plateau State Government had only paid the Sum of Three Hundred and Fifty Million Naira (N350, 000, 000), which is barely 80percent of the Initial Contract Sum it was expected to pay and surely, it was in breach. As a matter of fact, after receiving the Equipment, they were not installed where they ought to have been installed, as the only installation made was in Mangun, where one AM Radio Transmitter was installed and tested. On thing that is certain, is the fact that the PRTV who reposed too much confidence in Pinnacle Communications Limited, as well as in its Government, had their confidence deflated. DW13, Dr. Patrick Datum, the Erstwhile Commissioner of Information, got into the show after the Contract with Pinnacle Communications Limited had been concluded, as he assumption this Role, in the Month of February 2002. Little would be expected of him in terms of knowledge of the Source of the Funds for the Payments of this Contract, his Participation or Level of Involvement in the Bidding Process, or even, the Preparation of the Contract Agreement, amongst others. Through this Witness, he confirmed only the Procedure for Request of Payment, which responsibility was that of the Agency, that is, the PRTV. Further, his evidence concerning the Responsible Ministry to AwardContracts, appears credible, and he stated that it was the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning to do Awards. His Testimony as well as the Award of Contract in Exhibit D26A, contradicted the evidence of DW12, Mr. Israel Dabel, the Director of Engineering of the PRTV. Further, according to Dr. Patrick Datum, for the Award of Contracts at the Ministerial Level, the key Participants were the State Tenders Board, the Technical Committee, the Executive Governor or the Executive Council and thereafter, he narrated the Procedure. His narration appears to show a Procedural Gap and Bypass. A Bypass because from his testimony, none of the Documentary Exhibits made any allusion whatsoever to the Office of the Commissioner of Information. From the Documentary Exhibits considered by the Court, this fact speaks for itself, as the Communications were strictly between the General Manager of the PRTV and the Defendant, as Executive Governor. Further, there is a Gap, in the sense that, there is nothing before the Court, to show the involvement of the State Tenders Board other than in the Award of the Contract. There was also no shred of evidence that a Technical Committee was constituted either at the Ministerial Level or the Agency Level. 151