Senior Advocate of Nigeria represented the Defendant, during the Trial, he engaged another Senior Advocate of Nigeria and at the tail end of the Trial, he changed his Legal Representation yet again and engaged Two Senior Advocates of Nigeria. Therefore, it is safe to presume that Ignorance was not a Factor. As regards the issue of Judicial Precedents or Judicial discipline, I Fail to see where that comes into play in this case because the Doctrine of Precedents is tied to relevant facts and peculiar circumstances of each particular case. In any event, this Court, from all the Judgments cited by it, Acknowledged and Accepted the Supremacy of the Appellate Courts and abided with their Decisions. Under this head, there was no referral by the Court to any Foreign Case Authority, and so Learned Silks’ argument in regard to foreign authorities is discountenanced. However, it must be pointed out, that there is absolutely nothing wrong in citing Foreign Authorities, even though they are clearly of persuasive influence and where no pronouncement has been made by our own Court of Appeal and the Apex Court on an Issue, the citation of foreign authorities still remain of a persuasive nature. It is also important to note that to omit the word “Dishonesty from the Charge has not said that it does not have to be proved. The Prosecution is obligated to prove that the acts of Misappropriation, or Conversion, or Use or Disposal of the Monies were carried out dishonestly. The Real Issue here is, whether on the Facts in the Charge the Defendant was misled. To be misled, the defect in stating the word “Dishonestly” must be fundamental and misleading. It is clear that the Charge was not bad in Law, since it described a known Offence under the correct Cap 532 of the Penal Code, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990. When the Charge was read over to the Defendant, he stated unequivocally before the Court, to the hearing of all present, that he understood the nature of the Charges preferred against him, and pleaded not guilty. Furthermore, after, his Appeal to the Appellate Courts, and upon his return for Trial, he still made no Complaints and even after the Court received several Testimonies and Exhibits, there was still not a squeak of objection heard. The time to object to the Omission of "Dishonestly" in the Charge was again presented to him, when the Amended Charge was read over and his Plea was re-taken, but there was a very loud silence on this issue. Therefore, this Court finds that the Omission of the word “Dishonestly” did not cause any prejudice to the Defendant and he was fully appraised of the case brought against him in Court. Also, the Court finds that the Prosecution did properly charge the Defendant according to the Law, according to Case law Authorities as well as notable Authors on the subject. The Objection is found to be misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. As regards, the New Issue raised by the Defence that the Extra-Judicial Statement of the Defendant were obtained from during a QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION, it is important to state that this New Issue was contained in his Reply on Points of Law. This New Issue centered on the Extra-Judicial Statements of the Defendantadmitted as Exhibits P13A to C, which according to him were inadmissible for being a Product of Question and Answer Session with the Officials of the EFCC. He submitted that this fact was apparent in the Submissions of the Prosecution in their Written Address and he set out a few of such examples on Record. According to him, the Position of the Law is that, if found to be so, then such a Statement, cannot be regarded as free and voluntary. Reference was made to the case of NAMSOH VS THE STATE (1993) 5 NWLR PT 292 SC 129 AT 144 AT PARAS C-E, where he drew out the Dictum of the Apex Court thus: 40