DW3, Mr. Geoffrey Teme, a Member of the Special Committee also maintained this Opinion under Cross-Examination. It is amazing that Learned Silk for the Defence would argue on a pointless issue before the Court. There was therefore no issue that could possibly estop this Court from considering the live issues before it. As regards, Learned Silk representing the Prosecution’s Submissions on Sections 39 and 46 of the Evidence Act, this is a misplaced Submission for the simple reason that Provisos to Section 46 refers to Proceedings between the Same Parties or their Representatives in Interest and the Right and Opportunity to Cross-Examine must be present. To discuss these Sections, is an invitation to go into the Merit of these Reports, which are for the purposes of this Trial, somewhat irrelevant. The Committee Members themselves acknowledged that they are not a Judicial Body, they acknowledged the Supremacy of the Court. They acknowledged that theirs was only to Investigate only to turnaround and claim that the events did not occur during the Tenure of the Defendant as Governor and acknowledged in Paragraph 9.5(ii) that the Defendant “cannot be proceeded against under the Current Tenure, which is entirely a different mandate for a different Constitutional Tenure.” So, the argument of Sections 39 and 46 of the Evidence Act, are pointless arguments made by the Prosecuting Silk. Therefore, the Court finds that there is no Final Legitimate and Constitutional Verdict that binds this Court as an Issue Estoppel or Res Judicata, in the broader sense. As regards the long drawn out argument on CHARGES, concerning the fact that Counts 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,13,15,17,19,21 and 23 are defective and incompetent, Learned Silk representing the Defendant submitted that the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust under Section 315, as defined in Section 311 of the Penal Code must contain the essential element that the Defendant acted “dishonestly”. Once this element is omitted, the omission is fatal, as all the elements must not only be stated but must be proved. He relied on the cases of YAKUBU IBRAHIM VS COP (2010) LPELR – CA/A/6C/2017 (CA) PP 17-18, PARAS E-B, THEOPHILLUS ONUOHA VS THE STATE (1988) NWLR (PT83) 460, IBRAHIM AND ORS V COP (2010) LPELR-8984 (CA) AND AKWULE V THE QUEEN (1963) NWLR PT 105. Citing the case of ALABI VS STATE (1993) NO 7 NWLR 307, Learned Silk submitted that in this case at hand, the essential element of dishonestly had been omitted from all the Counts of Criminal Breach of Trust, and therefore, no Offence lies for which proof beyond reasonable doubt would arise. Once the essential element is omitted, the question of leading evidence-in-chief and utilizing any discredited evidence during Cross-Examination to prove dishonestly does not arise, as that which is not charged, cannot be said to have been proved. Reliance was placed on the case of UBANATU VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2002) 2 NWLR PT 643. Further, he argued that a Charge from which an essential element has been omitted, contravenes the Rule against Ambiguity. A Defendant must understand what he is charged with and he relied on Section 36(6) (a) and 36 (12) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, to say that it is improper to convict a Person for an Offence that is not known to Law. The Prosecution cannot claim to have proved an element that is not charged nor proved, where the Particulars of the Offence as stated in the Charge Sheet are not clearly and accurately stated and the Defendant cannot prepare for that, as a Vague Charge means an ambiguous or uncertain Charge. He cited the case of OKEKE AND ORS VS THE POLICE (1965) 2 ALL NLR 81. 30