charged, cannot be said to have been proved. He referred to the Judgment, particularly at Pages 30 and 31, in the case of FRN VS AWE ODESSA (SUPRA), where the Trial Judge had held that the Funds, which are charged in this present case, were not misappropriated. The question of Dishonesty cannot arise when there is no evidence of Misappropriation. Learned Silk submitted that the Finding in that Judgment has not been appealed against and same was binding on the Prosecution. This Finding was consistent with the uncontradicted testimony of the Plateau State Commissioner of Finance in Exhibit D6 Page 39, the House Report, where the Commissioner testified that no part of the proceeds of the Cheque was stolen or paid into a Private Account. The Commissioner had added that Virement, as per the Financial Regulations, was a proper practice and as such, did not amount to either diversion or theft of the Money. According to the Commissioner, ecological problems were matters of emergency for which the Government need not wait for Funds from the Federal Government or its Agencies, but when the Funds are subsequently received, it may be used for other purposes, in the overall interest of the State. He contended that the EFCC, who initiated the investigation, did not contradict this fact. Further, in the Report, it was never established before the House that the Funds of Plateau State Government were paid into the Ebenezer Retnan Ventures’ Account. Learned Silk referred to the testimony under Cross-Examination of PW1, Detective Musa Sunday, who identified Page 2 of Exhibit P4, as a Copy of Instructions to disburse the Funds dated the 19th of July 2001, given by the Defendant in his Capacity as Governor of Plateau State as well as Exhibit D6, the House Report, to argue that the Charge of Criminal Breach of Trust was not proved. PW1 had admitted that the Defendant acted in his Official Capacity as Governor of Plateau State, and the Federal High Court confirmed that Exhibit P4 was a valid and official instruction. PW1 also admitted he was aware that the House Report exonerated the Defendant but gave no reason as to why the Prosecution ignored the Findings of the House. Further, PW1 had confirmed that Pinnacle Communications Limited was a Contractor to the Plateau Statement Government and had collected the Sum of N250Million from the disbursements in issue. The Defence referred to the uncontroverted testimony of its Witness, DW11, Prof. Danladi Atu, who stated that the Defendant took steps to address ecological problems of the State. DW11 had described the enormous work done by the Defendant in the area of erosion control in his Local Government Area and the repairs of damages done to the environment through mining activities, which had caused several mining ponds in the area, making some villages inaccessible from the City. The testimony of this Witness was consistent with that of the Commissioner of Finance rendered before the House of Assembly as well as consistent with the Findings of the Federal High Court, to the effect that no Funds were misappropriated. Learned Silk Kanu Agabi SAN further submitted that every Breach of Trust in the absence of Mens Rea indicates no crime. The gist of Criminal Breach of Trust is Dishonest Misappropriation or Conversion to one’s own use of another’s Property. In order to constitute this Offence, it is not enough to establish that the Money has not been accounted for or mismanaged. It has to be established that the Defendant dishonestly put the Property to his own use or to some unauthorized use. Dishonest Intention to Misappropriate is therefore the required Mens Rea and a crucial fact to be proved to bring home the Charge of Criminal Breach of Trust. Unless it is alleged in the Charge, the Offence cannot be said to be proved, as the Defendant cannot be expected to prepare his defence on an allegation not stated in a Vague Charge and the question of discrediting evidence through Cross-Examination would not arise, 56