Further, in DR. SEGUN ODUNEYE VS THE STATE (2001) NSCQLR VOLUME 5 AT PAGE 1, the Supreme Court held that the choice of Witnesses is a matter of strategy and the decision is entirely at the discretion of the Prosecution. While it was recognized that a conviction could be based on the evidence of a sole Witness, the Prosecution is required to call Material Witnesses in proof of their case. It was held to be invidious to insist that the Prosecution must field every Witness connected with the case. Undoubtedly, the Prosecution is obliged to make all Material Witnesses available to the Defence even though they would field them in proof of the case for the State. Reference in this case, was made to the West African Court of Appeal in the case of R VS KUREE 7 WACA PAGE 175 AT PAGE 177, which held as follows, “It is well established that, it is the duty of the Prosecution to place before the Court all available relevant evidence. This does not mean, of course, that a whole host of Witnesses must be called upon the same point, but it does mean that if there is a vital point in issue and there is one Witness whose evidence would settle it one way or the other, that Witness ought to be called. The Prosecution has no duty to call and field All Known Material Witnesses so long as they call and field All Material Witnesses that they may consider necessary for proof of their case beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, it must be emphasized that Material or Indispensable Witnesses crucial for eliciting and setting the basis of the Prosecution’s case, must inevitably be called and fielded by the Prosecution, notwithstanding that the Consequence of such Witness’s testimony is favourable to or against the case of the Prosecution. To act otherwise, of course, would leave an indelible question mark in the Prosecution’s case that must be resolved in favour of the Defence.” Therefore, it is immaterial that more Witnesses could be called, except where it is specifically indicated that those Witnesses, if called would be adverse to the Prosecution’s case. See the cases of OKPULOR VS THE STATE (1990) LPELR-2523 PER BELGORE JSC AND ONAH VS THE STATE (1985) 3 NWLR PT 12 AT 236; THE STATE VS OLATUNJI (2003) SC LPELR-3227 SC PER NIKI TOBI JSC; OGBODU VS THE STATE (1987) SC LPELR-2282; OCHANI VS THE STATE (2017) SC LPELR-4235; ADAMU VS THE STATE (2017) SC LPELR-41436; GALADIMA VS THE STATE (2017) SC LPELR-43469AND ADEGBITE VS THE STATE (2017) SC LPELR-42585. In the case of IME DAVID IDIOK VS THE STATE (2008) NSCQR VOLUME 34 PAGE 827 AT PAGE 858, HIS LORDSHIP NIKI TOBI JSC, in following the dictum in ONA VS THE STATE (1985) 3 NLR PART 12 AT 236, held that the Prosecution has a discretion to call Witnesses of its choice. The Prosecution is under no Constitutional or Statutory Duty to call a Particular Witness or Particular Sets of Witnesses. The Prosecution has not the Legal Duty to call a Village or Community of Witnesses and an Accused Person cannot dictate to the Prosecution, Witnesses it should call to prosecute him. See further, the cases of EVARISTUS MOZIE VS THE STATE (2012), (CA) PER SANKEY JCA, who added that it does not lie in the mouth of the Defendant to dictate to the prosecution, the number of Witnesses it should call in proof of its case. As long as the Witnesses it calls or the evidence it adduces are, in its own opinion, sufficient to establish its case to the standard required by law, it is immaterial to the Court that a Particular Witness was not called. That is the decision of the Prosecution; See also AKPAN VS THE STATE (1991) LPELR-380 (SC); SUNDAY VS THE STATE (2010) SC. PER TABAI JSC LPELR-1470; EMMANUEL OLABODE VS THE STATE PER OKORO JCA (AS HE THEN WAS) stated in essence the above and added that although it was desirable to call Witnesses who are vital and material to the determination of a case, such failure cannot be a sufficient reason to quash the conviction of the Appellant, where there are other evidence sufficient and convincing enough to convict the Accused. There is no Rule of Law, which says that once a Particular Witness is not called, it is fatal to the Prosecution’s case. 13