11 Counsel wants the accused to be found guilty of forgery and using as genuine, since it is glaring that it is within the accused’s knowledge to know what his grade was. On the defence submission that the Forensic Examiner is biased because he submitted his report to the EFCC and not directly to the Court, the prosecution contends that this is not a procedure known to law, for it is not the practice for an expert to submit his report directly to the Court. The prosecution argued that PW3 in this case conducted his investigation without sentiment. He urged the Court to hold that PW3’s evidence is an expert evidence devoid of bias. In conclusion he urged the Court to convict the accused person accordingly. I have gone through the defence Counsel’s reply to the prosecutions Final Address. I need not repeat what the defence Counsel argued word by word but I will compare same with the prosecution’s Final Address in order to arrive at a just conclusion of this case. As it is a trite law that the onus of proof in criminal cases remains on the prosecution and the onus is static throughout, it does not shift unto the accused. See ADEYEYE VS STATE (2013)11 NWLR (PART 1364) PAGE 47 AT 80, PARAGRAPHS G – H. As I have stated earlier, that the accused is standing trial on two count charges of forgery before this Honourable Court, the charges are as follows: - COUNT ONE: That you Ojo Olufemi on or about the 23rd day of December, 2003 at Abuja in the Abuja Judicial Division of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory did fraudulently make a document titled UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN, STATEMENT OF RESULT NO. 0402773 dated 23rd day of December, 2003 purportedly signed by one Dr.(Mrs.) J.I. Oyebanji awarding you a Bachelor of Science Degree (Business Administration) with Second class Honours (Lower Division) under the authority of University of Ilorin with the intention of causing it to be believed that the said document was made by the