Victor had admitted this to him. He said Mr. Victor however did not told him the full story of the transaction although he worked with Mr. Victor at the time. He was merely asked to go and see the 2nd Defendant’s plot by Mr. Victor. He said there was no particular resolution reached with Mr. Victor in this matter even though the nominal complainant appears to be Mrs. Sonia and not Mr. Victor. The 4th Defendant stated that he is a Director of the 5th Defendant as well as a signatory to it account. DW3 stated under cross examination that it is correct that the sum of N20,000,000.00 was paid into the account of 5th Defendant on behalf of his wife. He said the 1st Defendant had dealings with the husband of the nominal complainant. That the 1st Defendant is certainly not a staff of Ad-Hoc Committee but an agent. He said he was providing consulting and contracting service to Mr. Victor. He said it will be incorrect to say that he, the 1st,2nd and 3rd Defendants work as agents. He stated that it will not be correct to say he benefitted from the sum paid in the course of the transaction. In order to resolve the contending issues in this case,let me first of all address the issue of jurisdiction because any decision taken by this Court on the substantive matter without jurisdiction is a waste of precious judicial time. Counsel to the 1st – 3rd Defendants has raised the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the charge in this case. Counsel is talking about lack of evidence to sustain the charge against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. I have read the amended charge. The Defendants have been alleged to have committed acts recognized as punishable offences under our criminal laws. The issue of failure to adduce evidence to sustain the charge against the Defendants does not affect the competence of charge or render it incompetent. It simply means the Prosecution has failed to prove the allegations contained in the charge on the standard of proof required in criminal cases. This can only be determined after weighing the evidence before the Court. It would therefore amount to turning the law on its head to say that having failed to prove the allegations in the charge then the charge is incompetent. That is not the law. Where prosecution fails to prove 26