agrees that in her statement, Exh. B, PW1 paid the sum of N1 ,547,500 for the said transaction. ln point of fact, in Exh. B, her statement, the defendant admitted and agreed to pay back the sum of N1,379,900= back to PW1 at best instalmentally. It will be recalled that this matter was reported to the police on the 14th of August, 2021. See Exh. A. Then, the Defendant upon having fore knowledge the report, quickly supplied forty two bags of rice to PW1 through her husband. From Exh" A, what is left due to PW1 is the sum of N648,000= The testimony of PW1 refers. [\4ost profound is the fact that the Defendant has admitted that she has not supplied beans or groundnut oil to PW1. As at the time the complaint was made to the police, it is very clear from the evidence before the Court that the defendant after collecting the said monies including transportation cost for the supply of the aforementioned commodities, and, as the time of the complaint by PW1 and PWz at the police station had supplied nothing. The defendant in her defence told this court that her tricycle rider informed her of the fact that PW1 had taken steps to freeze her account, and, also had involved the police to track her line. The testimony of DW1 refers. Having got wind of this fact, she, DW1 quickly went and supplied forty five bags of rice to PW1 after the complain to the police had been laid. It will also be recalled that it was when the tricycle rider was arrested by the police initially, that it then led to the eventual arrest of the Defendant. The cross-examination of the prosecution of the Defendant refers. It is clear to this court that the Defendant paid nothing to any faceless or nameless Alhaji in Kano for the supply of beans. She took no steps to pay for the beans or supply the beans. She said she paid money to the said Alhaji's account. No documentary evidence supports that, DW1, the Defendant said the Customs officers seized some of the goods, that is groundnut oil, at ljebu-Ode. That again is a barefaced lie. The defendant said she went up North claiming that it was to pay for the said commodities, and, then supply to PW1 and PW2. That is from the evidence, neither here nor there. The antics of the Defendant remaining incommunicado, switching off her line, relocating to an unknown place, and refusing to supply PW1 and PW2 their 1.4