Office in Abuja. The Cheque was signed for and collected by Mr. Victor Dilang, who delivered same to one of Plateau State Government’s Bankers, the AllStates Trust Bank Plc., which cleared the Cheque through its own Suspense Account and then proceeded to apply the proceeds thereof, to meet the needs of the Government of Plateau State as directed by the Defendant. He analyzed the evidence of the Ten Prosecution Witnesses stressing that it was instructive that neither the Federal Government nor the Plateau State Government had found anything wrong with the conduct of the Defendant until the Federal Government of Nigeria received a Petition from the London Metropolitan Police, who incidentally did not see it fit to charge the Defendant with any Offence. Further, Plateau State Government had not complained of any loss of Funds and neither did the Ecological Funds Office ever complain of Misappropriation or Criminal Breach of Trust. The evidence recited by PW1, Mr. Musa Sunday and PW3, Mr. Bamanga Bello, both EFCC Investigators in this Court, were the same as that rendered before the Kaduna Federal High Court and therefore, this Court cannot reach a different Decision on the same evidence. Learned Silk submitted that the evidence of PW7, Mr. Dabi Gideon Dashong, the Handwriting Expert from the EFCC, did not prove any wrongdoing as there were no disputes as to Signature or Handwriting and noted that, even though the Documents were sent for analysis to the Forensic Laboratory in 2007, it was only in 2015 that the Report was eventually received. The evidence of PW9, Mr. Peter Clark, a Retired Police Officer from the London Metropolitan Police, had little relevance to the Charges before the Court, as his testimony was devoted to allegations of Money Laundering in London. As regards the evidence of PW10, Mr. Mohammed Kawu Mohammed, concerning Asset Forfeiture, he stated that no reasons were given as to why the Defendant’s Assets were forfeited even before the Trial began and stated that several of the Assets forfeited, had been wrongly ascribed to the Defendant. Learned Silk then defined Criminal Breach of Trust under Section 311 of the Penal Code and submitted that the Defendant was charged with the Offences of Criminal Breach of Trust in Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 and punishable under Section 315 of the Penal Code. According to him, that the Defendant acted “Dishonestly”, is an essential element of the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust as defined in Section 311, which word was twice mentioned in that Section, to mean that the Defendant dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use or dishonestly used or disposed of that Property. He relied on the cases of YAKUBU IBRAHIM VS COP (2010) LPELR- CA/A/6C/2017 (CA) PARAS E-B PER ODILI JCA (AS HE THEN WAS); THEOPHILIUS ONUOHA VS THE STATE (1988) NWLR PART 83 PAGE 460; IBRAHIM & ORS VS COP (2010) LPELR-8984 (CA); AKWULE VS THE QUEEN (1963) NNLR PAGE 105. To constitute an Offence under Section 315, it was imperative that all the ingredients of the Offence be stated and proved, beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise an omission of any element was fatal to the Charge, citing the cases of CAPTAIN ABIDOYE VS FRN (2013) 12 SC PART 1 PAGE 99 AT PAGE 119 PARAS 25-30; ALABI VS THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR PART 307 PER ONU JSC; COP (MW) VS AKPATA (1976) 1 ALL NLR PAGE 235 AT PAGES 240, 241 PER ADEMOLA CJN; TIMOTHY VS FRN (2008) ALL FWLR PART 402 PAGE 1136 PER OMOLEYE JCA. Learned Silk, analogized the fact that once the Element of Dishonesty is omitted from the Charge, it was fatal to the case of the Prosecution, rendering the Counts defective and incompetent and therefore, the question of leading evidence to prove this element would not arise, since what is not 55