The Trial commenced on the 25th of January 2016 with the evidence of the Prosecution, who called a total of Ten (10) Witnesses to prove its Case, whilst the Defendant called Sixteen (16) Witnesses in Defence, making a Total Number of Twenty-Six (26) Witnesses in this Trial. At Close of Trial, the Defendant, in his Final Written Address dated the 10th of November 2017 and filed on the Same Day, raised Twelve Issues for Determination, namely: 1. COUNTS 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,13,15,17,19,21 AND 23, which charge the Defendant with Criminal Breach of Trust punishable under Section 315 of the Penal Code, are all defective and incompetent in that essentials of the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust have been omitted. These omissions are fatal. In particular, dishonesty, which is an element of the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust, has been omitted. It is no surprise that as the element of dishonesty was not charged, no attempt was made at proving it. 2. The case is rife with Contradictions and inconsistencies giving rise to reasonable doubts that ought to be resolved in favour of the Defendant. For instance, whereas in Charge No: FHC/KD/144C/2004 (FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS AWE ODESSA & 5 ORS), it was alleged by the Prosecution that the Cheque, subject of the Charge in Counts 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,13,15,17,19,21, and 23 was unlawfully procured by the Defendant, in this Court, the allegation is that the Cheque was entrusted to the Defendant-a material contradiction, which no attempt was made to resolve. This Honourable Court is humbly and respectfully urged to resolve the doubt arising in favour of the Defendant. 3. There is no indication in the Counts charging Criminal Breach of Trust of the Direction of Law prescribing the mode in which the trust alleged to have been breached, is to be discharged or of any legal contract, express or implied, which Defendant made touching the discharge of such trust, or that the Defendant wilfully suffered any other Person to breach the trust or that the Defendant disposed of the assets contrary to such specified directive. There is no proof of Misappropriation as charged in Counts: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 4. 17, 19, 21, and 23. On the contrary, there is the Judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction to the effect that the Funds were not misappropriated by the Defendant. There is also the Report of the House of Assembly of Plateau State to the same effect. 5. The Judgment of the Honourable Justice Liman in Charge No: FHC/KD/144C/2004 (FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS AWE ODESSA & 5 ORS) delivered on the (sic) was to the effect that the Defendant did not misappropriate the Funds charged in these Counts-a decision against which the Prosecution did not appeal. The Prosecution is estopped from contending the contrary by alleging in these proceedings that the Defendant committed Criminal Breach of Trust in respect of the same Funds. 6. The Prosecution is bound by the Findings made by the Plateau State House of Assembly exercising its powers of investigation under Section 128 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to investigate corruption-findings, which are to the effect that the Defendant did not misappropriate the Funds charged in these Counts. It is instructive that the investigation conducted by the House of Assembly was at the instance of the Economic and 7