Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000. The prosecution has not proved that the alleged gifts in Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all gifts given by a giver to the Defendant who accepted them corruptly. It is submitted that the evidence of DW1 deflected the case of the prosecution that the transactions between the Defendant and Himma Abubakar are “corrupt gifts”. Far from this, the unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence of the Defendant backed by documentary evidence is proof that the prosecution EFCC did not set out to investigate the matter out to make recoveries of money for Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is the contention that the prosecution has not discharged the burden of proof on it that the monies and vehicles as charged were indeed corrupt gifts given to the Defendant by Societe D’ Equipment Internationaux Nigeria Limited (the alleged giver). It is submitted that for the prosecution to prove that the Defendant received the alleged gifts corruptly it must be proved that the intention (meus pea) i.e. the intention and or objective with which the Defendant received them were corrupt. See NWOKEARU v STATE (2013) 16 NWLR, Pt 1380, P. 207 at 235 Para D – F. 22