He submitted as inappropriate the testimony of the Commissioner of Finance before the State Assembly, which was to the effect that the Defendant disbursed the Funds in his Official Capacity, as Governor of the State and also that no part of the Funds was stolen. These are not admissible evidence for this Trial to prove the truth of the Contents of those Statements. By the Provision of Section 46(1) of the Evidence Act, evidence given by a Witness in a Judicial proceedings or before any Person authorized by Law to take it, is admissible for the purpose of proving, the truth of the fact which it states, in a Subsequent Judicial Proceedings or at the Latter Stage of the Same Judicial Proceedings, when the Witness cannot be called for any of the reasons specified in Section 39 of the Evidence Act or when the Witness is kept out of the way by the adverse Party provided that the Proceedings were between the same Parties or their Representative in Interest. By Section 39 of the Evidence Act, it must be shown that the Witness is either dead or cannot be found or has become incapable of giving evidence. This provision was not complied with, as there was no foundation laid by the Defence satisfying, the requirement of Section 39 and 46 of the Evidence Act. The Prosecution was not given the opportunity to Cross-Examine the Commissioner of Finance before the House of Assembly. He cited and relied on the case of AREMU CHUKWU (2012) 3 NWLR (PT 1288) 587 @620- 621, where the Court of Appeal held that the evidence of DW1 at the Pre-Trial Proceedings was evidence given in a Previous Proceeding, which was only usable at the Present Proceedings for the purpose of Cross-Examination, but was inadmissible as the truth of its Content. Therefore, he argued that Evidence given in a Previous Case is not admissible by the Court trying a Latter Case, except under Section 46 of the Evidence Act. The best use that can be made of such evidence is for Cross–Examination with the aim of discrediting a Witness called to testify in the Latter Case. Reliance was placed on the cases of AYANWALE VS AYANDA (1988) 1NWLR (PT68) 22, SHONEKAN VS SMITH (1964) 1 ALL NLR 168, OGUNTAYO VS ADELAJA (2009) ALL FWLR 1626. He urged the Court to disregard the reference made to the testimony of the Commissioner of Finance of Plateau State before the State House of Assembly. The Prosecution further argued that the submission of the Defendant that the Plateau State House of Assembly had exonerated him of the Crime alleged in this Case is laughable. The Defence Witnesses gave evidence that there was no such clearance. DW2 Geoffrey Teme, was the Majority Leader of the House, who tendered Exhibits D6 and D7, and he admitted during Cross-Examination that the Committees of the House were not competent to try Crimes and were not Competent to clear the Defendant as to whether he is guilty of the Offence or not. He never claimed the Committee exonerated the Defendant nor did he state that monies were misappropriated. Assuming without conceding that the House of Assembly found that the Defendant did not misappropriate the Funds, such Findings cannot ground a Plea of Issue Estoppel or a Plea of Double Jeopardy. The State House of Assembly is not Constitutionally empowered to try Crimes, and the Trial envisaged under Section 36 (9) and 12 of the 1999 Constitution, is a Trial before a Court of Competent Jurisdiction to try Crimes and he relied on the Case Law Authorities of BABA VS NCATC (1991) 5 NWLR (PT 192) 388 @415, SOFEKUN VS AKINYEMI (1980) 57 SC 1, DENLOYE VS MEDICAL AND DENTAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE (1968) 1 ALL NLR 306, GARBA VS THE UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI (1986) 1 NWLR (PT 18) 550 AND KALU VS FRN (2014) 1 NWLR (PT 1389) 479 @541. 27