appeal before me positively reiterated his position as to the date of the petition until he was confronted with his petition . Whilst in Ayorinde' s case, the word "brother" was used to refer to those who where descendants of the founder of the family . The appellate aourt opined /\ that the full meaning of brother in African setting ought t~ have been asked in re examination. The meaning should not have been left bare. In Okoro .V. State, supra, the appellate court made it clear that reexamination "is another chance to clarify facts but not an opportunity to restate the testimony given in evidence in chief all over again" . The appellate court went on to categorically state, that the re examination must be on a material facts in controversy . As I had held earlier, the dates of the petition are not material to the case. The · principles enunciated in Audu .V . State do not apply in the case in hand. The evidence of PWl on the date cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be regarded as inconsistency. Therefore inconsistency rule as espoused in Audu .V. State, cannot apply. PWl's evidence on the date was positive and direct although immaterial to criminal charge before the learned trial court . Before I conclude this judgment, I must state that the appellant's counsel should have taken the opportunity the learned trial magistrate offered him by rephrasing the question instead of embarking on this appeal. I say so because taking into consideration of the fact that he is prosecuting, I do not think it is a wise decision for him to stall the proceedings at the trial court . Had the defence played this role, it would have made a lot of sense to me . I say no more . 16 I r, ,, r'. ,,