Court to disregard the evidence led by certain witnesses. He argued that during her testimony, PW1, Hauwa Kulu Usman, the Widow of the Late Contractor had stated that the Sum of N90 Million Naira was paid by Mr. Suleiman to the Defendant, whilst PW2, Mr. Suleiman had stated that N80 Million Naira was paid but to Salman Global Ventures. He then challenged the contradiction of Alhaji Tutare, when he initially stated that he shared part of the Money; then later stated that he collected the Money and gave same to the Defendant, and then in another breath, he stated that the Money was paid to Salman Global Ventures. Since the above was challenged, the Prosecution ought to have adduced further evidence in establishing this fact. Now, it is clear that for a contradiction to be material, the essence of what was said must be substantial and must severely affect the substance of the case. There must be an inconsistent account of the same event such that serious doubt on the case is presented. In the case of OLATUNBOSUN VS THE STATE (2011) ALL FWLR PART 555, 304 @ 344 PER NWEZE JCA (AS HE THEN WAS, NOW JSC), it was held that such inconsistent account would be treated with suspicion, and in any event, Courts have even taken the view that witnesses may not always speak of the same facts or events with equal and regimented accuracy. Reference is also made to the case of BASSEY VS THE STATE (2012) ALL FWLR PART 633, 1816 AT 1832 S.C. See also the Case of TEMPLENWANKWOALA VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2018) LPELR-43891 (SC), where it was held that a piece of evidence contradicts another when it affirms the opposite of what that other evidence has stated, and not when there is just a minor discrepancy between them. Two pieces of evidence contradicts one another when they are themselves inconsistent. A discrepancy may occur when a piece of evidence stops short of, or contains a little more than what the other evidence says or contains minor differences in details. See also the cases of GABRIEL VS THE STATE (1989) 5 NWLR PT 122 AT PAGE 460; ONUBOGU & ANOR VS THE STATE (NSCC) AT PAGE 358. It is only material contradictions that are to be considered. Per RHODES-VIVOUR JSC. 261