his Trial, certain Materials, which sets out the evidence intended to be given in Trial against the Defendant, popularly referred to as the Proof of Evidence. This Proof of Evidence contains a Statement of the Charges, a Petition, if applicable, the List of the Witnesses the Prosecution proposes to call at the Trial, the Statement of the Evidence expected to be given by each Witness at the Trial, the Witness Statement(s), List of Exhibits to be introduced, including, if any, Further Witness Statement(s) and/or Further List of Exhibits. In ABACHA VS THE STATE (2002), LPELR-16, SC, ONU JSC AT PARAS B-C held that the purpose of serving Proof of Evidence upon an Accused, is to give him the opportunity of knowing what the Prosecution Witnesses will state in Court against him. See also the cases of EDE VS THE STATE (1977) 1 FCA 95 AT 115; OYEKAN & ANOR VS AKINJIDE & ANOR (1965) 1 NMLR PAGE 200 AT PAGE 204; ARUNA VS THE STATE (1990) 6 NWLR PART 155 PAGE 125 AT PAGE 136. In FARO VS IGP (1964) 1 ALL NLR PAGE 6, a Charge of Obtaining by False Pretences, although the wording of the False Pretense might have been fuller or different, the Charge was held sufficient, if it conveys the substance of the False Pretence alleged, and the Conviction is not open to Objection if the substance of the False Pretence alleged does not differ from that of the Operative Pretence proved. Now, Section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, which is in pari materia with Section 206 ofCriminal Procedure Code, states thus: “An error in stating the Offence or the Particulars required to be stated in a Charge or an Omission to state the Offence or those Particulars, or any duplicity, misjoinder or non-joinder of the Particulars of the Offence shall not be regarded at any Stage of the Case as Material unless the Defendant was in fact misled by the error or omission.” Section 206 however added “and it has occasioned a failure of justice.” Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on its own part states thus, “Subject to the Provisions hereinbefore contained, no Findings, Sentence or Order passed by Court of Competent Jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on Appeal or reviewed on account of an error, omission or irregularity in the Complaint, Summons, Warrant, Charge, Public Summons, Order, Judgment or other Proceeding before or during Trial or in an Inquiry or other Proceedings under this Code, unless the Appeal Court or Reviewing Authority thinks that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned by the error, omission or irregularity.” In determining whether an error, omission or irregularity in a Proceeding under the Code has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the Objection could and should have been raised at an Earlier Stage in the Proceeding. Also relevant are Sections 222, 288 and 381 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further, Section 221 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 states, “Objections shall not be taken or entertained during Proceedings or Trial on the ground of an imperfect or erroneous Charge.” In the case of ENAHORO VS THE QUEEN (1965) NMLR AT 125, IDIGBE JSC dealt with the omission of the word “Corruptly” and the effect of that omission in a Charge of Bribery. His Lordship held, “Finally, there is the point that the word “Corruptly”, which occurs in Section 43(1) before the words “showing favour”, does not occur in the Particulars of the Charge. The Magistrate thought that the omission made the Charge bad; Savage J. thought that the word “bribe” in the Charge was sufficient to 37