for the Offences of Criminal Breach of Trust. Therefore, it will be Repetitious to Re-state them again
but Reliance is placed by the Court on that Evidence in determining the Innocence or Guilt of the
Defendant in regard to these Sets of Offences.
In regard to Count 3, the Defendant, Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye is alleged to have dishonestly
misappropriated the Plateau State Government’s Ecological Funds released by the Federal
Government, by diverting the Sum of One Hundred and Sixty Million Naira (N160, 000, 000) into the
Private Account of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures owned by him. It is worthy of note this Count of Offence
traces its Root Source to the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Cheque having a very Clear Purpose and having
an Ultimate Set Goal.
Learned Senior Counsel representing the Defendant had submitted that if the Charge of
Misappropriation in Count 1 fails, then this also fails. According to him, having been charged with
Misappropriation of the Whole Sum, it is duplicitous to charge the Defendant with diversion of Part of
the same Funds. He submitted that no evidence of diversion was proved and the Officials of the Bank
ought to have been called to testify as to the Person who made the Payment into the Account of
Ebenezer Retnan or who directed that the Payment be made.
Conversely, Learned Senior Counsel representing the Prosecution submitted that this Sum in the
Count was to address the Ecological Problems of Plateau State as contained in the Central Bank
Cheque. He referred the Court to the admission of the Defendant in Exhibit 15 A-C, stating that the
Defendant had made the work of the Prosecution to prove this Count, very easy.
Now, before dealing with this Count, it is important to initially resolve the contention that the Count is
duplicitous.
Duplicity is the Error committed when the Charge or Count on an indictment, describes two different
Offences. It is clear that each Count must allege ONLY ONE Offence to enable the Defendant know with
precision what Offence he is Charged with, and it fosters certainty in Criminal Charges and prevents
injustice to the Defendant. The exception is of course, where the Law provides One Punishment for
the Various Offences but this is usually found in Complex Crimes. In this instance, the Defendant was
charged with Criminal Breach of Trust in Count 2 for this Sum of Money, but it is noted that this
Count 3 deals with Criminal Misappropriation, which is a different Offence entirely from that of
Criminal Breach of Trust. They have different Set of Elements/Ingredients to be proved and it does
not matter that the Transaction or Evidence is the same. From the Common Law Principles and Case
Law, it is clear that, Two Criminal Offences are not to be considered as One Crime because they result
in a Single Unlawful Transaction. In any event, for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust, it is not
necessary to prove a Dishonest Misappropriation or Conversion, as proof of ANY of the Remaining
Quadruplet Modes, is sufficient to ground the Offence. The Money need not be for the Use of the
Defendant and so, going by the Elements of Criminal Misappropriation, it is clear that the Offences in
Counts 2 and 3 of the Charge are not the same Offence.
In any event, there is a Wealth of Appellate Authorities to the effect that they will not interfere on the
issue of Duplicity, if it is clear from the Records of Proceedings that the Defendant knew what Charge
he was to face, was neither embarrassed nor prejudiced and no miscarriage of justice was occasioned.
Reference is made to the Case Law Authorities of THE STATE VS GWONTO (1983) LPELR-3220
(SC) PER NNAMANI JSC; ONAKOYA VS FRN (2002) LPELR-2670 (SC) PER KUTIGI JSC AT PARAS
F-A; ALHAJI MOHAMMED KABIR MAMMAN VS FRN (2010) (CA) PER OMOLEYE JCA AND
MUSTAPHA VS FRN (2017) LPELR-43131 (CA PER GARBA JCA) AT PARAS A-C.
195