Lone Witness who testified before the Plateau State House of Assembly and finally, the Ten Witnesses who testified before this Court. According to Learned Silk, it was expected that the Testifying Witnesses be the same throughout the different occasions, set out above. However, the Prosecution in the above different occasions had called entirely different sets of Witnesses to prove the same allegations against the same Person. Illustrating his point, Learned Silk submitted that these same sets of evidence were adduced before the Plateau State House of Assembly, who exonerated the Defendant, which occasioned the Prosecution to change its Witnesses. Still on this same evidence, Liman J. sitting at the Kaduna Federal High Court yet again exonerated the Defendant, who in his Judgment admitted as Exhibit D21B, rejected the testimonies of Inspector Musa Sunday and Bamanga Bello. Therefore, Learned Silk concluded that the Charge is speculative and fishy, as the Prosecution was hunting for a Court to agree with him. In his own Written Address, Learned Silk for the Prosecution did not specifically respond to these Issues, which fact was pointed out by Learned Silk to the Defence, who in his Reply on Points of Law, cited the case of M.C.T. VS EZE (2006) 2 NWLR PART 964 PAGE 221 AT PAGE 241 PARAS E-G, PER ADAMU JCA, to argue that the Prosecution is deemed to have conceded all the issues and arguments of the Defendant, to which no answer was offered in this regard. Now, after a careful consideration of the above Issues, it is Trite Law that the Prosecution is required to call the Number of Witness or Witnesses who, in his assessment and considered opinion are necessary and sufficient to establish the Charges framed against the Defendant. In the case of ANSELEM AKALONU VS THE STATE (2002) NSCQR VOLUME 10 AT PAGE 1251, PER KUTIGI JSC at Page 1260, His Lordship stated that the Prosecution always has a discretion as to the number of Witnesses it would call to prove its case and it is not necessary to call a multitude of Witnesses, where only a few can do. See also CHIMA IJIOFFOR VS THE STATE (2001) NSCQLR VOLUME 6 PAGE 209, PER EJIWUNMI JSC, His Lordship stated that the Prosecution’s duty lies in calling such Witnesses as they would require to establish their case against a Defendant. ACHIKE JSC further stated that the prosecutorial responsibility is to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure the conviction of the Appellant. How they get around achieving this, is entirely the business of the Prosecution. Whether they field one, two or more Witnesses in satisfaction of such proof, will surely depend on the circumstances of each case. But under no circumstances will the Accused Person dictate to the Prosecution regarding the Person or Number of Witnesses that they must field as Witness or Witnesses. In ADESINA& ANOR VS THE STATE (2012) LPELR-9722 (SC) PER ADEKEYE JSC, concurred with the above, when Heheld that, on the issue of Witnesses to call, it is the prerogative of the Prosecution to call Witnesses relevant to its case. He further held as Settled Law the fact that the Prosecution is not bound to call every Person that was linked to the scene of the crime by his physical presence to give evidence of what he saw. Once Persons who can testify as to the actual commission of crime have done so, it will suffice for the satisfaction of proof beyond reasonable doubt in line with Section 138 of the Evidence Act. In VICTOR ESSIEN VICTOR VS THE STATE (2013) 6 SCNJ PAGE 32, it was held that the Prosecution is only duty bound to call essential Witnesses. 12