The Name Ebenezer Retnan Ventures was mentioned in Counts 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Amended Charge Sheet and so it is important to determine its Status and the Nexus of this Venture to the Defendant and further determine whether it needed to be joined as a Party and whether it could own Property. Learned Silk, representing the Defendant, contended that it was not an Offence for the Defendant to operate a Bank Account in the name of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures, and it was immaterial that the Plateau State Government also operated an Account in the same Bank. Further, he contended that Ebenezer Retnan Ventures was an Unregistered Company, which could not have Ownership over Property. He submitted further that there is nothing known to Law as an Unregistered Company as Charged in Counts 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11. In the light of that fact, the attribution of the ownership of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures, a non-existent entity, to the Defendant, does not disclose any Offence, in that an Unregistered Company cannot have Ownership. The Prosecution, on the other hand, disputed the correctness of the opening of the Account stating that there were so many irregularities in the Account Opening Documentation. PW3, a Member of the Investigating Team stated that Wrong Account Opening Documentation were used, with wrong information provided by the Account Officer as well as by the Defendant, in order to hide the Identity of the Real Owner of the Account. According to Learned Silk, an Individual Current Account Form was used to open an Account for Ebenezer Retnan Ventures, with the Date of Birth of the Account Holder given as 27th July 1957. According to him, Ebenezer Retnan Ventures, as a Company, cannot have either a Date of Birth or Nationality and cannot also be a Businessman or Self-Employed as stated in the Account Opening Documentation, bearing a Fictitious Address on it. The Account was not opened as a Private Banking Account, which, in any case, still requires the Identity of the Account Holder. Further, under Cross-Examination, PW3 insisted that the Defendant had requested for a Waiver of the Documents so that his Identity would not be revealed. The Investigative Team discovered that Ebenezer Retnan Ventures was not in Existence, was not Registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission and did not have a Physical Address. The investigation further revealed that the Real Owner of the Account was the Defendant, who was the Governor of Plateau State, and his Address was Government House and not Kilometer 87, as stated. Further, they discovered that various Cheques had been written out in the name of AllStates Trust Bank Plc. paid into Ebenezer Retnan Ventures. Those Cheques were raised from the Account of Plateau State Government in the name of AllStates Trust Bank Plc. and were lodged and cleared into Ebenezer Retnan Ventures. In the Reply on Points of Law, Learned Silk representing the Defendant submitted that the Charge had alleged that Ebenezer Retnan Ventures is an Unregistered Company, for which the Prosecution was expected to lead evidence consistent with the Charge. However, the Prosecution called PW1, whose testimony was to the effect that Ebenezer Retnan Ventures was a Registered Company based on the Response Letter from the Corporate Affairs Commission. According to Learned Silk, this testimony rendered by PW1 was a material contradiction, in that the Corporate Affairs Commission does not keep Records of Unregistered Companies, which contradiction, ought to be resolved in favour of the Defendant. Apart from that, Learned Silk, Agabi SAN argued that virtually all the Counts mentioned Ebenezer Retnan Ventures as being the Channel through which the Defendant misappropriated the Sum of N1, 161, 162, 900, implying that this Venture received Proceeds of Crime. 45