The Third Contention on the Issue of Grains is that of the Contradictions drawn out by the Defence from the Prosecution’s Witnesses Testimonies before the Court. Learned Counsel to the Defendant had contended that PW8, Mr. Abdulrahman Mohammed, the Liaison Office Accountant had testified that he droppedthe Money in Reverend Jolly Nyame’s Bedroom at the Governor’s Lodge. Mr. Japheth Wubon was said to have confirmed in Written ExtraJudicial Statement in Exhibit R2 that Mr. Abdulrahman Mohammed, had informed him that the Money was delivered to Reverend Jolly Nyame personally. In IJEOMAANYASODOR VS THE STATE (SUPRA), Per SANUSI JSC AT PP 24-25, PARAS A-A, it was held that it is not enough to show that there were contradictions in the Evidence of some of the Prosecution Witnesses, but it must be shown that the Trial Judge did not consider those Contradictions. His Lordship held inter alia that, “in this instant Case it is glaring from the Records that the Learned Trial Judge had meticulously pointed out and addressed each of their alleged Contradictions and commented on them, item by item as would leave no one in doubt, as to their effect or position and even none of the alleged Contradictions was material or had been shown to have occasioned a Miscarriage of Justice. It is settled Law, as I said, Supra, that for Contradictions to have any effect on the Case of an Accused Person, it must be Material, Substantial and must relate unequivocally to the Charge against the Accused Person. See the Case of STATE VS ABDULAZEEZ (2008). In this present Case, the alleged Contradictions were not material and substantial to the Offence the Appellant stood trial on at the Trial Court. The Lower Court therefore had rightly found that they had no effect on the Trial. Moreover, some of the alleged Contradictions regarded as material by the Appellant’s Learned Counsel were even not raised at the Trial Court but only on Appeal before the Lower Court.” In IKPA VS STATE (2017) LPELR-42590(SC)Per AUGIE, J.S.C (Pp. 45-48, PARAS D-B) held inter alia that “the position of the law on the issue of contradictions in the evidence of witnesses that testify in Court is pretty well 151