PLHA proceeds against Chief Joshua Dariye according to the Procedure laid down in the Constitution.” In Paragraph 9.4of the Report on Recommendations, the Special Committee realized that they were set up by the entire PLHA by virtue of Section 103 of the Constitution and therefore, NO FINAL DECISION CAN BE TAKEN AT THIS STAGE. “The Committee was only to submit this Report to the entire House. It is the duty of this Committee therefore, to make recommendations based on the evidence adduced by the parties concerned. In the majority of Paragraphs 9.5 (i) to (v), this Special Committee recognized that the events upon which the allegations were premised occurred PRIOR to the life of this current House of Assembly and therefore, OUTSIDE the Legislative Competence of the House. They then urged the allegations to be discountenanced. Further, the Report noted that the Tenure of Office of the Defendant had expired due to Effluxion of Time. Also noted was the fact that since the same set of facts are subject to adjudication by two Competent Superior Courts of Records, the Matter was therefore Res Judicata and the House of Assembly could not review by way of Legislative Investigation. The Special Committee Members had in Paragraph 9.5(iv) urged the House of Assembly not to conduct Legislative Inquiry and had strangely in Paragraph 9.5(v), found the allegations to be baseless, unsubstantiated and completely borne out of misconception or even deliberate malice and therefore, without merit. Their Conclusion appears to be drawn from the air, because they declined throughout to make a finding on Sub-Judice Matters. In the case of MILITARY GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE & 1 OR VS CHIEF B.A.E. NWAUWA (1997) NSCQR PAGE 420; (1997) 2 NWLR PART 490 PAGE 675, it was held as Settled Law that once a Person is accused of the commission of a Criminal Offence, he must only be tried by a Court of Law established under the Constitution, where the complaints of his Prosecutors can be ventilated in Public in accordance with the Law and where his Constitutional Right of Fair Hearing would be assured. No other Tribunal, Investigating Panel or Committee will do. Reference is also made to the cases of DR. O.G. SOFEKUN VS CHIEF N.O.A. AKINYEMI AND OTHERS (1981) 2 NWLR PAGE 135; (1980) 5-7 SC PAGE 1 AT PAGE 18; DENLOYE VS MEDICAL AND DENTAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE (1968) 1 ALL NLR PAGE 306; FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS J.O. LAOYE (1989) 2 NWLR PART 106 PAGE 652. Accordingly, the Panel was incompetent to “try”, as it were, the Respondent and to find him “Guilty” on any Criminal Charges. The determination of the guilt or innocence of any Person accused of the Commission of a Criminal Offence is within the Exclusive Jurisdiction of a Court of Law constituted in the manner prescribed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979. It seems to me that what the State Government should have done was to refer the Criminal Allegations of Misappropriation of Sundry Public Funds to the Nigeria Police for Investigation and Prosecution, if necessary, but not to vest the Panel with any authority to deal with the same. In any event, a very careful read of the Reports will show that the Special Committee Members recognized the fact that they had no Judicial Competence and Jurisdiction to make findings on Criminal Matters, and yielded such authority to the Courts of law. They also recognized the fact that the matters in the allegation before them, were already before Two Competent Courts of Jurisdiction and they made absolutely NO PRONOUNCEMENT in regard to any of the Charges before this Court. 29