Grains were bought and the Supplier was paid the N24.3Million in cash. Therefore, the evidence of Mr. Wuboncannot be hearsay. On the evidence of PW8, Mr. Abdulrahman Mohammed, that Adamu Aboki instructed him to bring the Money to the Governors Lodge, Abuja, and also that the information from the Governor through Mr. Adamu Aboki, is hearsay, the Prosecution submitted that the Defendant in his Extra-Judicial Statement confirmed how he received the Money from Mr. Abdulrahman Mohammed. Also, Mr. Abdulrahman Mohammed stated that it was done in the same manner he usually handed over Funds transferred from Jalingo. This conversation between Mr. Adamu Aboki and Mr. Abdulrahman Mohammed did not amount to hearsay evidence. The Defendant also contended that the evidence of the IPOs, PW9 and PW12 were Hearsay Evidence. This is far from the truth as the IPOs gave evidence of what they saw and did during their investigation. Learned Senior Counsel then submitted that the Exception under Section 126 of the Evidence Act to the Rule against Hearsay, is the Provision of Part III of the Evidence Act, which relates to Relevance and Admissibility of Evidence. In other words, Hearsay Evidence would be admissible if such evidence can be tendered and admitted under Section 14 to 36 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Particularly, Section 30 of the Evidence Act allows any information received from the Defendant to be given in evidence irrespective of the Rules against Hearsay. Thus, the argument of the Defendant is clearly weak and against the Law. The testimonies of the IPOs of what they saw and discovered during their investigation does not amount to Hearsay Evidence, and he placed reliance on the case of UGWUMBA VS STATE (1993) 5 NWLR (PT. 296) 660, per Kawu JSC at page 668, OBATA VS STATE (2014) LPELR-CA/C/294C/2013 page 15 and urged the Court to so hold. According to the Prosecution, once Documentary Evidence supports Oral Evidence, it becomes more credible as Documentary Evidence always serves 140