the Committee’s Report as Exhibits before the Court. After a vehement Objection raised by the Prosecution, the Reports were provisionally admitted as Exhibits D6 and D7. Mr. Teme stated that basically the Ecological Fund was given to fund the 2003 2nd Term Presidential Campaign of President Obasanjo. He also stated that Senator Ibrahim Mantu did not honour the invitation to testify before the Panel and from the Defendant’s presentation before the Committee, they discovered that Certain Sums were given for the PDP Campaign 2003 and he could not recall from the Report whether the Defendant took any part of the Money, or how much Plateau State Government benefited from the Ecological Fund. The Findings in their investigation gave them the power to clear the Governor of the allegations in the Petition, which they did. After submitting their Report, which has never been challenged by even a Minority Report, Armed Policemen from the EFCC surrounded the House of Assembly, and prevented the House of Assembly from further Sitting. Subsequently, Four out of Twenty-Four Members of the House sat at an unusual hour of 6am and impeached the Defendant, which Impeachment, the Defendant appealed and was later reinstated as Governor. After the Impeachment, the Seats of the House of Assembly were vacated because they refused to abide with the Decision of the EFCC, and they later appealed. During one of the Hearings in Abuja, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and Two Members were arrested and taken to Lagos by the EFCC. After the arrest, he and the other Members reported to the EFCC Office in Abuja, where Eight of them were also taken to Lagos. In Lagos they were detained, charged and prosecuted with the same offence the Defendant was charged with, they were granted Court Bail and later discharged and acquitted. However, Four of the Members who had seconded the Defendant’s Impeachment and the Decision of the EFCC were not charged alongside the others. Under Cross-Examination by the Prosecution, he gave an extensive narration of his educational, professional and business experience. Both he and the Defendant belonged to the same Political Party, even though since the Year 2006, he has not sought any Political Office through Election and he would not want anything to happen to his Political Friend. He was taken through the Recommendations made by the Panel in their Report, and he agreed with the Prosecution that the allegations happened before they were elected as Legislators and therefore, incompetent to preside over the allegations. He also agreed that the allegations laid was before a Court of Competent Jurisdiction and so they could not interfere, as it was clear that the House of Assembly could not sit to impeach on a Matter being heard in a Court of Law or pronounce Guilt or otherwise. He acknowledged the fact that the Impeachment Panel could not question or review the legitimate competence of the Court on a matter, which the Court considers subjudice. When questioned, he stated that he had expected a Cheque written in favour of the Plateau State Government to be lodged in the Plateau State Government’s Account and spent by it. He was unaware of the Procedure for disbursing Public Funds but stated that no withdrawal of State Funds could be made without the knowledge of the Accountant General of the State, who handles the State’s Finances. He was also aware that a Payment Voucher would need to raised by the Permanent Secretary before any amount is withdrawn from that Account. 82