contended that it could not be assumed that the actions of the Bankers were wrong or that the Bankers acted on the instructions of the Defendants. Further, PW5, Cyril Tsenyil, was not the substantive Accountant General when the transactions occurred. This Witness could not tell whether any of the Conditions Precedent to the making of the various payments was met or whether the Correct Procedures were followed. Learned Silk urged the Court to consider Exhibit D3, Lion Bank’s Letter, stating that the Payment into the Account of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures did not emanate from Plateau State Government. This Exhibit was consistent with the evidence of PW5, the Accountant General of the Plateau State, who had testified that Payments of Monies out the Government’s Coffers could not be made without Approval and Vouchers. The Logical Inference therefore is, had the Monies been made out of Government’s Coffers, it would have been supported by Vouchers. The Prosecution failed to tender the Authorization and Accompanying Vouchers supporting the Payments in these Counts and this was detrimental to his contention that the Payments emanated from Plateau State Government. In addition, PW5 did not refer to any instance or Instrument to show that the Defendant dishonestly misappropriated Plateau State Funds. Even when the EFCC carted away all Documents including Payment Vouchers, Treasury Receipts, Cheque Books, Cheque Release Registers, Bank Statements etc., yet not a Single Document was tendered during Trial, which implicated the Defendant and Learned Silk opined that had a Document been tendered linking the Defendant, that Document would have been detrimental to the Prosecution and would have shown that all Payments were legitimately processed and supported by Proper Documentation. Furthermore, Learned Silk referred to the evidence given in regard to the various Payments, arguing that the Payments were not specified or specifically identified. Even if made, the lodgments could be assumed illegal payments that would warrant convicting the Defendant when there was doubt on the issue. Since PW3, Bamanga Bello, had no opportunity to interview the Defendant, he could not have come to any conclusions, whether adverse or detrimental without an interview. It was insufficient for PW3 to draw his conclusions from Documents available to him and he urged the Court not to act upon the conclusions of the Witness, who arrived at his conclusions without the Defendant being given the opportunity of being heard. Learned Silk representing the Defence noted that apart from the Investigators who were Staff of the EFCC, no Staff of Plateau State Government were called by the Prosecution to prove the allegations of Criminal Misappropriation. The unchallenged evidence of DW4, Engr. D. Walman and DW5, Steve Igmala show that the monies were used to purchase Earth Moving Equipment, Vehicles and Spare Parts for the Direct Labour Agency (now Road Maintenance Agency). The Prosecution did not visit the Direct Labour Agency to see the Earth Moving Equipment, Vehicles and Spare Parts nor investigate at Julius Berger Plc., as to whether the Earth Moving Equipment, Vehicles and Spare Parts, were actually purchased and supplied as informed in Exhibit D18. There is evidence on Record that the Equipment is still presently in use. Learned Silk referred to the unchallenged evidence of DW11, Prof. Danladi Atu, to the effect that ecological works had been carried out and stated that this was consistent with the evidence of the Commissioner of Finance, who testified before the House Committee, which had commended him and the Finding of the Kaduna Federal High Court Coram Liman J., that there was no Criminal Misappropriation. 192