Now, it is important to state that this piece of evidence as rendered by Mrs. Asabe Maiangwa cannot possibly be Hearsay. Mrs. Asabe Maiangwa is not asserting the truth of the fact that the Defendant directed Alhaji Abubakar Tutare to pay the Sum of One Hundred and Eighty Million Naira (N180, 000, 000) to Salman Global Ventures. She was only stating that she confronted Alhaji Abubakar Tutare and only went on to state the outcome of that confrontation.What Alhaji Abubakar Tutare divulged to her, was what she heard him say in reply. The veracity or truth of whatever Alhaji Abubakar Tutare told her could only be tested through positive evidence, as she was not there when the Defendant gave that instruction to pay Salman Global Ventures Nigeria Limited the sum of One Hundred, and Eighty Million Naira (N180, 000, 000). Therefore, the fact of what she heard is admissible not for the purpose of establishing the truth but the fact of what was heard. Reference is made to the case of DPP VS SUBRAMANIAM (1956) 1 WLR PAGE 965 AT PAGE 969; JIMOH AMOO & ORS VS THE QUEEN (1959) 4 FSC PAGE 113 AT PAGE 115; UTTEH VS STATE (1992) LPELR-6239 (SC). From the evidence above, it is apparent that there was a deviation from the Mode of Purchase from Direct Labour to the Status of a Contract and the cause of the diversion started with the Directive of the Defendant to pay a Certain Sum of the whole to a Company. Alhaji Abubakar Tutare, who authored the Memo in Exhibit CC, followed this deviation path. After the Approved Sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Million Naira (N250, 000, 000), was released into the Account of the Ministry of Finance from the Accountant General, he bypassed the Custodian of the Funds, i.e., the Permanent Secretary by ordering the Assistant Chief Accountant of the Ministry of Finance, to pay the Entire Sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Million Naira (N250, 000, 000) to Salman Global Ventures Nigeria Limited. It is in evidence that AlhajiTutare had testified this Cheque could not be split. The Court notes that the Prosecutiontendered towards the tail end of the Defendant’s Cross-Examination, Exhibit VV1, a Secret Letter dated the 84