Her Lordship, AMINA AUGIE (JCA) (AS SHE THEN WAS, NOW JSC), IN OSAZUWA & ORS VS ISIBOR
& ANOR (2003) LPELR-7295 (CA), AT PARAS A-B stated that there is no Rule Of Law or Evidence,
which lays down that all Persons who know about a particular fact must be made Witnesses to testify
on the issue before it can be proved. SEE ALSO SIMON VS THE STATE (2017), (SC) LPELR-41988
PER MUHAMMAD JSC AT PARAS E-F.
Therefore, guided by these Principles severally laid down by the Apex Court, the ability of a
Prosecution to determine the Number and Quality of its Witness or Witnesses cannot be questioned
by the Court and certainly not by the Defence. Afterall, it is its case and will swim or sink with its
choice in the mode it applies in propagating the evidence it has against the Defendant. It is the quality
of the evidence it leads that sustains its case.
Therefore, it remained the choice of the Prosecution not to call the Accountant- General of Plateau
State and other Signatories of Plateau State Government Account, and it remained his choice not to
call the Bankers from the AllStates Trust Bank. In any event, it is in evidence that the Defendant
actually called Mr. Adonye Roberts, an erstwhile Staff of AllStates Trust Bank. As regards the failure of
the Prosecution to call Mr. Victor Dilang, the point is, Mr. Victor Dilang was actually called albeit by
the Defence to testify. So, what is the problem? The value of their testimony, which the Defence hoped
would be rendered in Court, was actually received by the Court and there was no complaint by the
Defence or even the Prosecution, that their Evidence was unsatisfactory. In the case of BASSEY
AKPAN ARCHIBONG VS THE STATE (2006) LPELR-537 (SC), ONU JSC AT PARAS B-C held inter
alia that “It is our Law that unless expressly so provided, no particular number of Witnesses is required
for the proof of any fact. See Section 178 (1) of the Evidence Act Cap 61 and where the defence desires to
call a particular Witness not called by the Prosecution, it is perfectly free to do so.”
On the Second Contention that different Sets of Witnesses were called on different occasions, such
as, at the EFCC for investigation, before the Plateau State House of Assembly Committee on the
Inquiry, before the Federal High Court in Kaduna and before this Court, to prove the same allegation
but had failed, regard is had to the case of OLUSINA AJAYI VS THE STATE (2013) NSCQR VOLUME
53.2 AT PAGE 632, which is on pointand as held by AKA’AHS JSC, “It is clear that Criminal
Investigations are carried out by the Police based on information at the disposal of the Force and the
Investigator uses his discretion at the disposal of the Force to determine how to go about the work. It
was observed that there was no Law, which stipulates the order in which investigations are to be carried
out.”
Therefore, it is not within the purview of the Defence Silk to contend that the Witnesses interrogated
by the Investigators were not utilised for the Trials both at the Court in Kaduna State and this Court.
Interviewing or Interrogation of Witnesses by an Investigator does not equate to the Investigator
finding their evidence relevant and worthy, presentable and adding value to the case he intends to
prosecute against the Defendant. In any event, the Defence may have had a point had the testimonies
of the Witnesses differed at the Federal High Court in Kaduna and before this Court. Had PW1,
Detective Musa Sunday and PW3, Mr. Bamanga Bello, rendered Contradictory Evidence, then the
Defence could have used such contradictions against them before this Court, to show their Credibility
as Witnesses. See the cases of ALADE VS ABORISHADE (1960) 5 FSC PAGE 167 PER ABBOTT, F.J.
As regards the Case reported to the Plateau State House of Assembly, the same logic applies here, as
the Prosecution believed that the Sole Witness they produced to testify before the House Committee
was sufficient to prove their case. As earlier stated, the Prosecution will sink or swim with whatever
14