From the above submission, Learned Silk contended that PW2, Mr. Adewusi’s evidence was the only evidence on this issue and his testimony was inconsistent with the allegation that the Defendant was entrusted with the Cheque. Learned Silk recalled that the Cheque was entrusted to Victor Dilang, which evidence was also consistent with the Findings of Liman J in the case of FRN VS AWE ODESSA (CITED SUPRA) admitted into evidence as Exhibit D21B. In that case, there was an allegation that the Cheque was unlawfully procured, and the AllStates Trust Bank Plc. and some of its Staff were charged with aiding and facilitating the Defendant to misappropriate the Funds. This Decision was not appealed against and therefore, estops the Prosecution from contending the contrary. Further, the Plateau State House of Assembly had also come to the same conclusion pursuant to their powers under Section 128 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended). Therefore, a gross material contradiction arose, as to whether the Defendant was entrusted with the Cheque. He contended that these contrasting positions, demonstrate bad faith and lack of interest of justice on the part of the Prosecution for which no conviction can be sustained against the Defendant. Furthermore, the Prosecution had the onus to call the Staff of the AllStates Trust Bank Plc., who participated in the events leading up to this Charge, and who could explain why they paid the Cheque into the Account of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures. It cannot be assumed that the actions of the Bank were unjustified or that they acted on the instruction of the Defendant. According to Silk, these Bankers were unjustifiably charged with suspicion and subsequently discharged and acquitted, which would explain why they were not called as Witnesses. In all, the failure to call these material Witnesses presupposes the withholding of evidence by the Prosecution as provided in Section 167 of the Evidence Act and the cases of SAM ONYEJIUWA CHINEKWE VS ANTHONY AKUBUEZE CHINEKWE (2010) 12 NWLR PART 1208 PAGE 226 AT PAGE 231; CHUKWUKA OGUDO VS THE STATE (2011) LPELR-SC 341/2010 PAGES 28, 29 PARAS F-A PER RHODES VIVOUR JSC. He then referred to the testimony of DW1, Adonye Roberts, a former Senior Manager and Staff of the AllStates Trust Bank Plc., where he stated that the Account of a Venture is classified as Private Banking and the existence of this Class of Accounts is not evidence of fraud. Further, he had stated that it was quite normal for a Bank to waive certain requirements for opening and maintaining an Account and in this case, the Bank Executives did the waiver. This Witness had identified Exhibit P6, the Central Bank Cheque, which he stated was cleared into a Suspense Account, owned by the Bank. He was emphatic that the Cheque was not cleared into the Account of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures and found nothing wrong with the Cheque being cleared through a Suspense Account. According to Learned Silk, the misconception or error of the Prosecution in stating that the Cheque was cleared through Ebenezer Retnan Ventures led to the Charges before this Court and he concluded that with this gross and fundamental contradiction alone, the Defendant is entitled to be acquitted. DW1 had earlier been charged on this misconception and was subsequently discharged and acquitted and he then urged the Court to come to the same conclusion. Further, he submitted that Mr. Timi Ebibomo, the Acting Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the AllStates Trust Bank Plc. as well as DW1, Mr. Adonye Roberts, acknowledged that Plateau State Government maintained an Account with All States Trust Bank Plc. This was also confirmed in Exhibit D6, by Mr. Emmanuel James Agati, the Commissioner of Finance, who went further to state that the Money was cleared by AllStates Trust Bank Plc. through its Suspense Account but not into the Account of the Defendant or Ebenezer Retnan Ventures. 58