to Convict based on any part of the Evidence. At that point, the Court would warn itself as to the safety to convict or not to. However, in this instant case there is no such doubt as to the testimonies of the Prosecution’s Witnesses. He cited further Section 198 (2) of the Evidence Act and the Case of EZEUKO VS. STATE (2016) 6 NWLR (PT.1509) 529 AT 580 – 581. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that from the Body Language in the Courtroom, PW6 showed that he was aggrieved with the conducts of PW10 and the Defendant, for which he raised a protest. When PW7 told him to share the monies he stated that he had no interest in it, and did not benefit from the money. There was also the contention that even though Alhaji Tutare was a reliable ally of the Defendant, from the same Political Party, who assisted the Defendant to commit the Offences, he had no choice because he was directed or else face resignation, and therefore could not be an Accomplice. Both Legal Representation went back and forth on the Applicability of Cited Case Law Authorities and also on the question of the proportion of the share of money that went to the Officials of the Ministry of Finance from the Contractor. Learned Counsel representing the Defence, in his Reply on Points of Law submitted that these Witnesses were not Competent Witnesses, and the Evidence they rendered was unreliable making it unsafe for the Court to convict in the absence of Corroborative Evidence of a Witness whose Evidence does not in itself require Corroboration. There was also the Challenge on Contradictions and Inconsistencies in the Evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses, and the fact that the Evidence of some of the Witnesses amounted to Hearsay, with the Documents said to amount to Documentary Hearsay. All these Contentions, keenly argued by both Legal Representatives across the divide, are essential on the Records of the Court and will be addressed in 53