Persons and as such, their evidence were insignificant, immaterial or irrelevant to the Charge at hand and some of the Witnesses gave contradictory evidence. He noted that virtually no Actor or Participant played out in the events giving rise to this Present Charges. It was only PW2, Mr. James Olanrewaju Adewusi, who was an Actor or Participant and his evidence was to the effect that he released the Central Bank Cheque in question to Mr. Victor Dilang, who was not called as a Witness by the Prosecution and who did not give incriminating evidence against the Defendant. The evidence rendered by Mr. Adewusi, PW2, who testified that the Cheque was delivered to Victor Dilang, ran contrary to the Charge that the Defendant was entrusted with the Cheque, and to the Prosecution’s assertion at the Kaduna Federal High Court Trial, which alleged that the Defendant unlawfully procured the Cheque. Learned Silk cited the cases of OGUONZE VS THE STATE (1998) 4 SC PAGE 110 AT PAGES 155, 156 PARAS 40-5 (SC); EDOHO VS THE STATE (2004) 5 NWLR PART 865 PAGE 17 AT PAGE 51 PARA A-C (CA); NNOLIM VS THE STATE (1993) 3 NWLR PART 283 PAGE 569 AT PAGES 569, 581 PARA B, to argue the point that the Prosecution had a duty to call all Material or Vital Witnesses, who knew something significant about the matter, and failure to do so meant that the Prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the burden placed on it. Learned Silk, however, pointed out that it was in fact the Defence that called Victor Dilang, who testified as DW15. Learned Silk further observed that not a Single Witness from AllStates Trust Bank, who participated in the events leading to these Charges were called as Witnesses to testify and he stated the reason to have been due to the fact that these Officials of the Bank were unjustifiably charged to Court but were subsequently discharged and acquitted. According to him, the failure to call the Bank Officials was fatal, as they needed to clear the air about why they paid Cheques raised in the name of the Bank into the Account of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures. Other Principal Actor Witnesses not called by the Prosecution were the Accountant- General of Plateau State, Mr. Nuhu Madaki and other Signatories of the Account belonging to Plateau State Government, as no monies could be paid out of the State Account without due authorization and accompanying Vouchers. The mere fact that Criminal Charges had been filed against these Persons in other Courts will not constitute proof against the Defendant that he is Guilty of Criminal Misappropriation. Kanu Agabi SAN further discussed Section 167 of the Evidence Act, 2011 to draw out the implication of the failure by the Prosecution to call Material Witnesses, submitting that this resulted in the withholding of the Material Witnesses’ evidence that would have been unfavourable to the Prosecution. He relied on the cases of SAM ONYEJIUWA CHINEKWE VS ANTHONY AKUBUEZE CHINEKWE (2010) 12 NWLR PART 1208 PAGE 226 AT PAGE 231; CHUKWUKA OGUDO VS THE STATE (2011) LPELR-SC 341/2010 PAGES 28, 29 PARAS F-A PER RHODES VIVOUR JSC. Learned Silk’s Second Contention on this First Issue raised is that Different Sets of Witnesses were called on different occasions to prove the same allegation and had failed. He submitted that aside of PW1, Detective Musa Sunday and PW3, Bamanga Bello, who remained constant; Different Witnesses were called at different times and fora, to prove the same allegations. He listed out the Witnesses interrogated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on the Petition lodged, and listed out the Witnesses who testified at the Federal High Court at Kaduna, and also listed out the 11