Financial Crimes Commission through a Petition, alleging that the Defendant had committed Criminal Breach of Trust in Counts: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23. 7. Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23, which charge Criminal Breach of Trust are vague and therefore bad in that the Person or authority alleged to have entrusted the Defendant with dominion over the monies charged, is not specified. The allegation in the Charge relates to the place where the Cheque is alleged to have been collected. Counts 3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22, which charge the Defendant with Criminal 8. Misappropriation of the Funds specified in those Counts, are inherently defective in that the Funds alleged to have been misappropriated, were not in the possession of the Defendant at the time of the alleged Criminal Misappropriation nor is there any proof of dishonesty as charged. 9. In the light of the evidence of PW5, the Accountant General of Plateau State, to the effect that no monies belonging to Plateau State Government can be paid out of the coffers of the State, without due authorization and accompanying vouchers, the logical inference arising from the failure of the Prosecution to tender the vouchers supporting the payments charged in Counts: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 is either that the said vouchers have been withheld, in which case the presumption is that the evidence is detrimental to the case of the Prosecution or that the payments did not emanate from Plateau State as alleged in the various counts. In either case, the Counts ought to fail. 10. Having regard to the evidence of PW1 that Plateau State did not report loss of any Funds and having regard to the Report of the Committee of Plateau State House of Assembly exonerating the Defendant, all the counts of the information must fail for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt as required by Law. 11. There is nothing known to Law as an Unregistered Company as charged in Counts 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11. In the light of that fact, the attribution of the ownership of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures, a Non-Existent Entity, to the Defendant does not disclose any offence in that an Unregistered Company cannot have ownership. 12. The evidence called in respect of all the Offences charged is either insufficient, irrelevant, immaterial or inconsistent and do not suffice to prove the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt as required by Law. Issues 2, and 12 will be considered when the substance of the case is being determined. In his introduction to these issues, Learned Silk additionally submitted on Two Sub-Issues, namely: a) Virtually all the Witnesses were neither Actors nor Participants in the events giving rise to these Charges; and b) Different Sets of Witnesses were called at Different Times to prove the Same Allegations and failed on each occasion. The Prosecution, on the other hand, in his Written Address dated the 22nd of December 2017 and filed on the same day, raised only A Sole Issue for the Court’s determination, namely: “Whether having 8