“When I was invited by the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission, I was made to make statement. I was not shown the allocation of Fine Trust Academy but I was shown the original allocation of Pax Education Resource Limited which I confirmed signing. Then the allocation of Fine Trust Academy was laminated and I told them that I cannot confirm whether I signed it or not because it was laminated. The signature on the allocation of Fine Trust Academy Limited looks like my signature but it was laminated.” Another disturbing revelation from both the evidence of PW2 and DW6 and his statement exhibit 11 (a) made on 5th July, 2013 was the assertion that PTA (Nigeria) Limited applied for the grant but the letter of allocation came out in the name of Pax Education Resource. DW6 in both his testimony in open Court and his statement, exhibit 11 (a) made on 5th July, 2013 conceded and admitted that the process was wrong. The question now is why did the 2nd Defendant as DW6 ignored the application form of PTA Nigeria Limited contained in its policy file, exhibit 18 and then proceeded to issue allocation letter in the name of Pax Education Resources that never applied for land allocation? To answer the question, it is important to once again review the statement of the 1st Defendant exhibit 11 and his testimony before the Court as DW4. In exhibit 11 made on 30th January, 2012, the 1st Defendant stated:“SS1 Jikwoyi III was allocated to Pax Education Resources in 2000.” Before I proceed, the evidence before me especially the testimonies of PWS2, 3, the statement of the 2nd Defendant, exhibit 11(a) and his evidence as DW6, it is wrong to allocate a plot of land to a person that did not apply for allocation of land as in the instant case, PTA (Nigeria) limited applied but allocation exhibit 5(a) came out in the name of Pax Education Resource, an unregistered company at the time of allocation. 39