Atiku And Efcc

While I am yet to fully understand the issues at hand, I am somewhat curious about certain aspects of this development. First, as I have read somewhere, a bank BNP "wired" money to another bank -- Adenuga Bank -- which was used to finance the activities of Globacom and that the money was sent some eight months before Atiku deposited the FGN funds in the same bank. Now the question: Given the co-mingling of funds that occurs in a bank, how was the EFCC able to prove that in fact the money used for the said activities of Globacom was EXACTLY the funds that Atiku deposited in the bank and not the one sent by BNP?

Second, it is curious to me, only because I am not able to ascertain the time-lines here, that the EFCC indicted Atiku on the report of the Panel after Obasanjo forwarded the report to the EFCC. Let me be somewhat clearer:  Did the EFCC even and actually investigate and independently confirm for itelf the contents of the report of the panel prior to adopting the report? Can the EFCC really defend the investigation it conducted if in fact it conducted one? How does the time-span of investigation of the EFCC compare with the time-span of investigation of the Panel?

Third, if in fact the money used for the Globacom activities were not categorically the moneys deposited by Atiku, is the crime of Atiku simply the fact that he deposited the moneys in the said bank of Adenuga? And if that is not sufficient as a crime, then can anyone prove that in fact Atiku benefitted from the act of depositing the moneys in the Adenuga bank? By the last question I mean to ask: was there a quid-pro-quo between Adenuga and Atiku that has been proven that is yet confidential?

Now even if the moneys of the FGN was used to finance the activities of Globacom, did Atiku receive any benefits as a result of such use of the money? Then, of course, I should think that this also shows up the uselessness of that crap of paper that some Nigerians call a Constitution: After all if we are following the American system, is an accused not innocent until proven guilty? So why then must Atiku not be allowed to abandon the election for the presidency on his own volition instead of being summarily disbarred? Is that not some form of inconsistency in the crap of Constitution? As I said I am only trying to understand the issues.

Lips sealed