Liaison Office in Jalingo. His travel does not make any sense at all, as any Staff of the Ministry of Finance could have done them the favour of depositing the Cheque on their behalf. The Accountant travelled back and from the Statement of Account of the Abuja Liaison Office, the Withdrawal was evident. So, if the Accountant withdrew the Money as evidence, how then did the Lagos Seller come into the mix? By the Defendant’s narration, it is only Mr. Wubon or the Accountant that would pay the Lagos Supplier BUT they did not know that Supplier. So, who sent the Money to Lagos? If the Defendant’s evidence that he did not receive the Money personally is true, then why on earth was the Accountant not queried or even indicted and jailed for theft. This was a Direct Order for Purchase by the Defendant and it would only take a very bold and courageous Civil Servant to go against the Directive of a Governor of a State. From the Contents of the Memo seen in Exhibit Q dated the 27th of June 2005, it can be seen that the items of Grains included Maize, Rice, Beans, and Guinea Corn, the Cost of Transportation and Other Contingencies. So, how then, can the Defendant state before the Court that ALL the Money was given or sent to the Rice Trader in Lagos? Very curious indeed as the appellation “Rice Seller” and not “Grains Sellers”, presumes that, that was the only Product that Supplier marketed. It all does not make sense and certainly does not add up! The Court in conclusion finds that the Defendant as Governor of Taraba State was a Public Servant entrusted with the Funds of the State, gave an Approval to a Wrong Agency, i.e., the Taraba State Liaison Office in Abuja. The Defendant assumed Dominion and Control over the Funds, and issued out Directives contrary to the Financial Instructions of his State and as seen 169