Now, the Court will initially refer to the Case of AKINBOBOLA VS THE STATE (1991) 8 NWLR PT 208 191 AT 207, whereit was held that the Constitution must be construed to give effect and force to ALL the Provisions otherwise its Purposes would not be Served. Further, reference is made to the cases of OKHAE VS GOVERNOR OF BENDEL STATE & ORS (1990) 4 NWLR PT 144, 327 AT 366; ISHOLA VS AJIBOYE (1994) 6 NWLR PT 352, 506 AT 558-559; P.D.P. VS I.N.E.C. (1999) 71 LRCN 2465 AT 2518; I.M.B. SECURITIES PLC VS TINUBU (2001) 91 LRCN 3000 AT 3016; OBIH VS MBAKWE & 2 ORS (1984) 1 SC 325 AT 341 AND IFEZUE VS MBADUGHA (1984) 5 S.C. 79 AT 101. The Oath of Office as contained in the Seventh Schedule, is an Undertaking, he either affirmed or swore to uphold and can be said to be an Agreement between him and the People of Taraba State that he would carry out his Official Duties in Compliance with the Law. Therefore, he is expected to Comply, Obey and Issue out Lawful Directives in compliance with the Taraba State Financial Instructions, which was birthed by the Public Finances (Control and Management) Law CAP. 108. That is just one! Other Possible Violations could be from the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, the Penal Code Law, and the Taraba State Civil Service Rules. After resolving whether any or all of those Modes have been proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt, the Court will then determine, whether based on the Principles set out above, the Modes were done in Violation of the Law AND were carried out by the Defendant, Dishonestly. The Final Element to be established is, whether the Defendant did so DISHONESTLY. Learned Counsel representing the Defence,contended that the Prosecution had the requisite burden to prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt that the Defendant acted dishonestly. 41