Appellant’s issue No. 1 which is similar to the Respondent’s sole issue is, in my view, adequate, enough in resolving this appeal. Arguing the appeal, learned counsel S. H. Sa’ad referred copiously to Sections 6, 7 and 38 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004 to submit that the Appellant is a statutory body saddled with powers of investigating and prosecuting offences bordering on economic and financial crimes and the Court will not exercise its powers to restrain a statutory body from performing its statutory functions. Counsel also submitted that legal principles established in decided authorities are not to be applied across board in all matters without regards to facts and issues framed for adjudication in a particular case. He referred to the case of ABUBAKAR V. NASAMU NO. 2 (2012) in contending that the facts and circumstances of the case of Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN V. Federal Republic of Nigeria relied upon by the trial Court are completely different from the charge against the Respondent in Charge No. SS/34C/2021 because the Supreme Court did not state that EFCC cannot prosecute offences of criminal breach of trust, but attempt to pervert the course of justice. In further argument, Counsel submitted that while the Supreme Court held that the offence of perversion of course of justice is not defined by any law, criminal breach of trust, and misappropriation of funds has been defined by Sections 311 and 308 of the Penal Code Law. In his response, learned counsel for the Respondent, Shamsu A. Dauda while acknowledging the powers of the Appellant under Sections 6 and 7 of the EFCC (Establishment Act) 2004, he however submitted that CA/S/114C/2022 Page 6