Substantially, paragraphs 7-12 and 23 of the respondent’s counter affidavit and Exhibit 1 annexed there under are in agreement with the facts averred by the Applicant in relation to the signed memorandum of understanding signed by the parties. Furthermore, paragraphs 13-22 of the respondent’s counter affidavit and the accompanying Exhibit 11 series which comprised of the photocopies of cheque leaves, only shows various transfers and withdrawals of monies (linked to different accounts without explaining how the transfers and withdrawals constitute an economic and financial crimes, despite the fact that it is trite law that court of law do not speculate on issues nor embark on voyage of discovery. - Salik V. Idris (2014) 15 NWLR Pt. 1429 P 36 - Plateau State V. AGF (2006) 3 NWLR Pt. 967 P. 346 - Okotie Eboh V. Manager (2004) 18 NWLR Pt. 905 P. 242 I have also observed that the Exhibit 12 annexed to the respondent’s counter affidavit and which are the statements of the Applicant made on the 4/11/2019 and 6/11/2019, only shows what the Applicant has planned to do and started doing with the monetary value of the sold 40% equity shares to Sokoto State Government. In consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case of the Applicant before this court, it is the humble view of this court that the case of Dr. Joseph Nwobika SAN V. FRN (Supra), applies in this instant application, because the Supreme Court in that case has succinctly and successfully, set out parameters and indicators that will always guide any courts in determining whether or not a particular conduct, act or crime is an economic and financial crime which the EFCC can investigate and prosecute within the contemplation of the combine effects of Sections 6(b); 7(1)(a) and (2)(f); 13(2) and 46 of the EFCC (establishment) Act 2004 as in this application. Page 29 of 31