that the aim of re-examination is "to clear amb igu ities, incons iste ncies, doubts or haziness that arises out of cross-examination ." I '.) Counsel admitted that there is discrepancy on date written in the petition and PWl's answer in cross examination . That the prosecution re-examined on this discrepancy in order to clarify the ambiguity and contradiction . He further cited Okoro .V. State (2012) 4 NWLR (part 1290) 351; Ayorinde .V. Sogunro (2012) 11 NWLR (part 1312)460. Counsel relied on S. 130 (3) of Evidence Act 2011 and submitted that it is necessary .for PWl to be given an opportunity to explain the contradictions . Counsel cited the case of Audu .V. State (2003) 7 NWLR (part 820) 516 @ 532 where it was held that where a witness either gives or makes an explanation as to th e inconsistencies in his earlier written statement and his evidence in court his explanation is sufficient for the trial court not to trea t the witness as unreliable . In contradistinction to the forego ing, where a witness fails to explain such inconsistency, the contradiction would be resolved in favour of the ( --~ ")~:::.1;- accused person if it relates to a m9terial fact in issue. c_~ tll'.,' On this, counsel relied on the following cases : Egboghonome .V. State (1993) 7 NWLR (part 306) 352 and Emoga .V. State (1997) 9 NWLR (part 519) 25. Counsel posited that the law envisages that an opportunity be given to PWl in re-examination to provide the missing link in the evidence given in cross examination. He further cited "Andrews & Hurst on Criminal Evidence" by Michael Hirst, relying on page 215 of the book; Police .V. Nwabueze (1963) 2 All NLR 119; S. T. Hon-s Law of Evidence in Nigeria Vol. 1 @ Pp. 427 - 429. Counsel contended that it is 10 I P a [~ e I