The Prosecution is expected to establish that the Defendant as Public Servant, being Entrusted and having Dominion over the Taraba State Government Funds a) Misappropriated OR b) Converted the Funds to his Own Use; OR c) Used the Funds; OR d) Disposed the FundsOR by intentionally OR willfully allowing any other Person(s) to do so.It is also worthy of note that in regard to the element of Disposal, the Section again, appears to widen up, by expanding the Defendant’s culpability under this Charge to include his Influence or Interference in Causing or Affecting another Person’s Actions by suffering them to Dispose of the Property. After determining any of the above from the evidence adduced at Trial, the Prosecution is then mandated to prove through Counts 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of Offences that the Defendant committed these Offences, Dishonestly and in Violation of any Direction of Law, prescribing the Mode in which such Trust is to be discharged or in Violation of any Legal Contract, Express or Implied, which he made touching on the Discharge of such Trust. Now, after a careful consideration of the above Submissions made by Learned Silk and Learned Counsel, in this regard, the Court would initially consider the Mode of Conversion. It is an unauthorized control, wrongfully and intentionally, exerted over another’s Property, in denial of, or inconsistent with, his Title or Rights therein, or in derogation, exclusion, or defiance of such Title or Rights, WITHOUT the Owner’s consent and WITHOUT lawful justification. It involves an unauthorized assumption of the right of ownership over another's Property. Generally, any Type of Conversion that occurs after a person obtains lawful possession of the Property is sufficient. Further, in order to commit misappropriation of Funds, a person must not only take the Money, but must use it for his own purposes. However, this 35