had raised Two Queries on the Procedure he was directed to comply with. How he is an Accomplice is a Mystery. From all the above Principles cited above, Body Language has never been a Factor to consider in determining whether one is an Accomplice or not. This Witness rendered uncontroverted evidence to the effect that he did not personally benefit from the Money shared in the Ministry. He was only directed to engage in the distribution of what was shared. Therefore, if he was displeased, with what he perceived of the Conduct of Rev. Jolly Nyame and Alhaji Tutare, it only speaks to his Background and shows that he is of a General Good Address. He does not in any way, qualify as an Accomplice. As regards PW7, Mrs. Asabe Maiangwa, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, it is clear that she benefitted from the Crumbs that fell off the Table. She was a participant and she did not deny it, and justified it as a Gift. What will make her Evidence inadmissible would be positive evidence of what she stood to gain by her rendition before the Court, or the establishment of a Vendetta. It is clear that she was not charged before the Court alongside the Defendant, and the sharing that occurred for which she personally gained, is distinct from the Charge before the Court. Her evidence was principally material to the Procedure and the Administrative Workings of the Ministry of Finance and therefore she has nothing to gain in testifying against the Defendant. As regards PW10, Alhaji Tutare the Erstwhile Commissioner of Finance, he was good enough to realize his active participation in some of the Offences in the Charge, and can by every definition be classified as an Accomplice. He continuously expressed remorse and was not charged alongside the Defendant. What then did he stand to gain? This Witness had not been shown to have a grudge against the Defendant most especially as he pleaded to be charged along with his Boss, the Defendant. It is clear as would still be seen, that he started making his Extra-Judicial Statements in the Year 2005 long before the Defendant was charged with any Offence and had continued what had to be a cordial relationship with the Defendant till Year 2007, when the Defendant left Office. 57