In the instant case, the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged gifts in Count 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively were all gratification or corrupt gifts. It is the submission that the prosecution failed or omitted to prove whether any contract existed between the Air Force and Societe D’ Equipment Internationaux with which the Defendant was charged with its execution. The failure of the prosecution to establish this critical ingredient of the 4-count renders the charge unproved. Court is referred to the testimony of PW1 under crossexamination to the effect that the purported contract was invalid because there was no pricing, it was not contained in NAF Budget and there was no acceptance of the contract. See BPS CONSTR. & ENGR CO. LTD v FCDA (2017) 10 NWLR Pt 1578 Pg 1 at 25 Paras C – F; Pg 48 – 49 Para H, Paras A – B. Most crucial is that the prosecution did not prove that the Defendant was charged with the responsibility to supervise/oversee the execution of NAF procurement through the Office of the NSA for certain military supplies by Societe D’ Equipments Internationaux Nigeria Limited as alleged in the charge; neither did the prosecution 23