as a hanger from which to assess Oral Testimony, and he placed reliance on the cases of KIMDEY VS MILITARY GOVERNOR OF GONGOLA (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 77) 445 AT 473, OMOREGBE VS LAWANI (1980) 3-4 SC 108, FASHANU VS ADEKOYA (1974) 6 S.C. 83. In this instant case, there is Documentary Evidence that there was an Approval, a Written Admission that Cash was paid to a Contractor, and that the Grains were supplied. This Documentary Evidence is enough to support the Oral Testimonies of PW5, PW8, PW9 and PW11. As regards the contradiction in the evidence of PW5 and PW8 on how the Money was delivered to the Defendant, Prosecuting Silk submitted that according to PW8, when he got to the Governor’s Lodge, he only met the Steward who opened the door to the Bedroom and he dropped the Money there, and PW5 in Exhibit R1 stated that PW8 confirmed to him that the Money was delivered to the Defendant personally. Finally on this point, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this abovestated contradiction is laughable, as PW8 cannot be contradicted with the Extra-Judicial Statement of PW5, as PW5’s Statement only confirmed that the Money was delivered to the Defendant. Therefore, there is no Material Contradiction between the Evidence of PW5 and PW8. In his Reply on Points of Law, Learned Counsel to the Defendant contended that the Prosecution’s argument that the Defendant denied receiving or knowing anything about the Grains Money was an afterthought, based on Exhibit Z6, as the Entire Sum was paid to the Supplier in Cash, and the Grains were delivered. Learned Counsel clarified that the Complainant failed to appreciate the entire evidence given by the Defendant, when the Defendant’s attention was drawn to a Particular Statement under Exhibit Z6, vis-a-vis his denial of receiving Grains Money. The Defendant made it known that he was told that the Sum of Twenty Four Million, Three Hundred Thousand Naira Only (N24, 141