kidnapped by hoodlums. There was dispute betw e en the Governing Council of the College and the Senior staff association . it also involved Pwl who was fond of writing petitions . The governing council had also suspended the then provost but he refused to vacate the provost lodge . So when the first defendant came on board as interim provost, the then secretary to the State Government of Anambra State directed in writing that he should be given alternative accommodation . The witness then went to the tourist Garden Hotel and met the manageri .e Owl who gave him rooms 404 and 105. He confirmed that the whole transactions were done confidentially due to security reasons . He added that all payment for the accommoda ti on at the Hotel was done in accordance with the law and procedure . Under cross- examination , he stated that th e 1st Defendant was a man of impeccable integrity and that he even assisted the PW 1 when he was first dismissed from the College for some misconduct. In his testimony, the DW3 confirmed what DW2 stated. Under cross examination he stated that as a provost it is his duty to approved vouchers for his hotel accommodation. The general practice is that vouchers bears the name of the beneficiary but in this case, because of the security situation vouchers were made in the name of bursar. He added that the vouchers are regular because the authority that approves have approved them . On 19/3/ 1,? both parties adopted their written addresses . The Defence filed and served their own on 30/l 119 while the prosecution filed their own on 1513120l 9. The defence also filed a reply on 1913119 · 10