settled. It is not every minor contradiction that matters for a Trial Judge to disbelieve a Witness, the Contradiction in his Evidence must be on a Material Point - KALU V. STATE (1988) 3 NSCC 1. Thus, the Law allows room for Minor Discrepancies in the evidence of Witnesses, which may not be fatal to the Prosecution's case. The word "Contradiction" comes from two Latin words ‘Contra’ meaning opposite, and ‘dicere’, which means to say the Opposite. So, to contradict is to speak or affirm the contrary, and a piece of evidence is contradictory to another when it asserts or affirms the opposite of what the other asserts and not necessarily when there are minor discrepancies in the details between them. As NNAEMEKA-AGU, JSC, said in OGOALA V. STATE "contradiction between two pieces of evidence goes rather to the essentiality of something being or not being at the same time, whereas minor discrepancies depend on the person's astuteness and capacity for observing meticulous detail" - SEE AKPAN V. STATE (1991) 3 NWLR (PT. 182) 646 SC, DAGGAYA V. STATE (2006) 7 NWLR (PT. 980) 637 SC and OCHEMAJE V STATE (2008) 15 NWLR (PT. | 109) 57, where in TOBI, JSC, explained - Contradictions definitely arise in evidence of witnesses in Court. That explains the human nature and the humanity in witnesses. Although witnesses see and watch the same event, they may narrate it from different angles, in their individual peculiar focus, perspective or slant. This does not necessarily mean that the event they are narrating did not take place. It only means most of the time that the event took place, but what led to the event was given different interpretations, arising from the senses of sight and mind dictated by their impressions and idiosyncrasies. That is why the law says that contradictions, which are not material or substantial, will go to no issue. The Main Interest of the Court is that the witnesses are in Union or Unison as to the happening of the event but gave different versions in respect of the peripheral surrounding the event. As regards the Contention that there was a Contradiction between the Testimony of Mr. Japheth Wubon who testified that he did not know whether the Grains were Purchased or whether the Funds were embezzled, on the 152