The Appellant was charged under section 4(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged that in the capacity of agent of the Government of the Federation he accepted various sums as gratification in respect of his principal's affairs. The main evidence against him came from the complainant whom the learned President unhesitatingly held to be an accomplice. The learned President believed the complainant's evidence as a whole and in particular to the sums which were alleged to have been paid to the Appellant, but wisely looked elsewhere for corroboration before accepting his evidence. He found the required corroboration from the wife (PW 2) whom he held not to be an accomplice, as well as from another witness (PW 6).

In this appeal the learned President's grounds of judgment were severely objected to on four main grounds. First it was contended that the charge was erroneously framed, as the Appellant, being a Penghulu attached to the State Land Office and discharging his duty in connection with lands, is in fact a servant or agent of the State rather than the Federal Government. Secondly it was argued that, as the complainant's evidence varied on some matters wit