According to him, the Prosecution had referred to the Venture as a Separate Legal Entity distinct from the Defendant, but added that Ebenezer Retnan Ventures was not made a Party and was not Charged in this Criminal Charge, inspite of the seriousness of the allegations levied against it in the various Counts, and therefore did not afford the Venture, the opportunity to explain why various Sums were received and the purpose of the receipt. Therefore, Learned Silk submitted that this Court cannot reasonably do Justice without first affording Ebenezer Retnan Ventures an opportunity to be heard, and any decision reached would infringe on their right to be heard, thus offending the Provision of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and he relied on the case of DIBIA VS THE STATE (2017) 12 NWLR PART 1579 PAGE 196 AT PAGE 223, PARA H. Now, PW1, Detective Musa Sunday, testified that the EFCC forwarded a Letter to the Corporate Affairs Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “CAC”), which was acknowledged, seeking the Registration Status of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures as a Company/ Business Name and this Letter was admitted without Objection as Exhibit P9. The Reply Letter from the CAC dated the 10th of December 2004, admitted as Exhibit P10, stated that there was no evidence in their System that Ebenezer Retnan Ventures was registered with them. His Team’s investigations revealed that the Defendant owned Ebenezer Retnan Ventures, however, they could not obtain any Certificate of Registration of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures both from the CAC and the AllStates Trust Bank Plc., where the Account was opened and the Defendant did not produce the Certificate of Incorporation. At the Closing Paragraph of Exhibit P10, the Court notes that the Registrar-General of the Commission had requested from the EFCC, a Copy of the Registration Certificate of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures for further Search, which is suggestive of the fact that there is no Certificate of Incorporation anywhere. Therefore, it is clear that, Ebenezer Retnan Ventures, on the authority of the Response Letter from the Corporate Affairs Commission, admitted as Exhibit P10, is NOT an Incorporated Company or even a Registered Business Name, and the Court recognizes this Commission to be the ONLY Official Body known to Law to validate the Legal Existence of a Non-Natural Person. Further, there is the Judgment delivered by my Learned Brother, Liman J. in FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS AWE ODESSA& 2 ORS (2006) FHC/KD/43c/2004 REPORTED IN ECLR VOLUME 1 AT PAGE 101 AT PAGE 121, which was not appealed against, therefore, his Pronouncements and Findings made therein are still extant and informs Exhibit Y before this Court. A close look at Exhibit Y tendered on the 17th of June 2016, by the Prosecution will show that His Lordship found inter alia these undisputed facts: 1. That Ebenezer Retnan Ventures was neither registered as a Business Name nor was it incorporated as a Limited Liability Company; and 2. That the Person who opened and had been operating the Account was Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye, and the Names on the Mandate Card were those of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures and Daniel Haruna, but the Signatories were that of Daniel Haruna and Chief Joshua Dariye. Any Witnesses’ Testimony to the contrary, will not change the fact or confer any Legal Identity on it. The only Proof of the Juristic Personality of a Non-Human Juristic Person is the Production of its Certificate of Incorporation or Registration under the Relevant Laws. Reference is made to the cases of APOSTOLIC CHURCH ILESHA VS A. G. MID WEST (1972) 4SC 150, ABAKALIKI LGC VS ABAKALIKI RMO (1990) 6 NWLR PT. 155, at Page 1 & 2 and IYKE MED MERCH VS PFIZER (2001) 10 NWLR PT 722 AT PAGE 540; AGBONMAGBE BANK VS G.M.G.B. OLLIVANT (1961) 1 46